Happy New You

Should auld acquaintance be forgot,

And never brought to mind?

Should auld acquaintance be forgot,

And auld lang syne!

-

For auld lang syne, my dear,

For auld lang syne,

We'll take a cup o' kindness yet,

For auld lang syne.

...

It's the end of another year, and what a year it has been.  As the new year's revellers prepare for the night ahead, I find myself looking back on the year.  'Auld Lang Syne' is traditionally sang at midnight as one year ends and the new one begins.  I've included an excerpt of the lyrics, the first verse and the chorus perhaps the most well known.  They are quite sombre, filled with sorrow but also filled with hope.  I've never dwelled on them much before but never have I had a year that I am so happy to see the back of, so this is a time of reflection for me.  I'm only 28 and I know some people will call me a Summer Child but I would argue against that given what I had to see growing up, but that's for another time. 

"Should auld acquaintance be forgot" - this lyric is the one I am dwelling on the most.  I said goodbye to a few people this year, one or two were very difficult to part ways with but it was necessary.  Still the fact that this year is the year we parted on top of everything else that happened makes me dwell on it if only for a few moments at a time.  I don't want them back in my life, nothing has changed, we would only repeat the same problems over again.  This year has brought the true colours out in many people and it's made me realise how ugly some of those are.  When you look at websites online and see the mix of designs that range from elegant to complete train wrecks it really makes you think about who should and shouldn't be able to make decisions.  Putting aside whose side you want to be on I think everyone can agree they think the other's demonstrates a severe lack of judgement.

Arguments over personality conflicts, and life decisions whilst disconnected from politics, take on the same characteristics.  An argument is an argument, no matter what the subject is, both people always think they are right and it's not usually possible for them both to be so.  When you reach an impasse you have a choice to make, either agree to disagree, or see the difference as irreconcilable and part ways.  In a few cases this year I chose the latter and to be honest I am happy I did.  I am not happy I lost the people but people grow apart.  Memories are just memories.  Reality is the present and the future, the past is just a dream - one that actually happened.  It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.

The question the song asks - should old acquaintances be forgotten? - I think the answer is no, don't forget them, keep the memories, but accept that the people you knew are gone, because we all change as we grow, we become different people in time, and that's ok, sometimes people grow apart because the people we become don't get along.

I was going to end this post with a video of the song, but I've decided to end it with a video from Doctor Who instead, a speech by Matt Smith before he regenerated into Peter Capaldi, because I think it's appropriate.

Happy New Year, Happy New You.

New Year's Resolutions

As the year draws to a close, the inevitable question of new year's resolutions arises.  I have a mixed record when it comes to these like most people.  I've made many that have barely lasted a day, whilst making others that I managed to keep for a few months.  The fault I think, or the reason for failure for me, comes from the attempt to make a permanent change pegged against what is essentially an arbitrary date.  I've made resolutions to learn languages, give up certain foods, commit to exercise regimens amongst other things over the years.  Rather than make permanent changes this time around, I've decided instead to set temporary goals, or time-limited goals.

Firstly I've decided to return to Duolingo, but, I've decided not to specify which languages I will focus on, simply to use the site more, either to learn something new or revise what I already know.  I would like to improve my writing ability in Spanish, I can already read with proficiency.  I'd like to continue studying Greek and learn more about the country and its history.

Secondly I've decided to learn a new programming language.  As to which, I haven't decided that.  I can already program in quite a few, but I would like to learn something new, ideally something I've never used before, or even seen examples of, if possible.

Thirdly I want to finish a fantasy novel I have been working on and add it to my bookshelf on Kindle Direct Publishing, I've decided when it's finished I will make it free; I've been thinking over the pros and cons to doing this and I think it's something I'd like to do.  I've already published a few other books through Kindle, sales have been, disappointing, nowhere near what I would like, but not surprising as I don't have the time and resources to commit to marketing and it's really just a hobby.  I've made a few of these books free for short periods of time before as promotions and that's given them a lot more attention.

Apart from these three things I'm not going to set out anything I do or do not want to do in 2017.  This year has been full of unexpected twists and turns and I've decided the best approach to 2017 is probably just to approach it with no expectations whatsoever.

Last Minute

I have a mixed record when it comes to doing things to a schedule.  I normally get things done on time, that bit isn't the problem.  My problem like most people is putting things off.  With most of my coursework when I was in College and University I did it more or less when I got it so that it was out of the way, same with most things professionally I tend to get things done as early as I can so I can get feedback or amend it if I need to, it's my personal life where procrastination comes into play.

This blog for example I have to write posts for it in advance and schedule them, because when I do it as I go along I always leave it to the last minute to write posts and end up with writer's block with no idea what to write.  Even when I write posts in advance though, I establish a "buffer" of posts that are scheduled, I should really keep going to increase that buffer but I usually end up leaving it, until I've only got one or two posts left on the schedule then write another batch of them.  I've spoken about batch processing mentality in a previous post, and in many ways this is an extension of that.  Procrastination is in essence a deference to batch processing, essentially "not now, later" and when later comes, you're left with everything to do at once.

I've tried many different approaches in an attempt to alter this behaviour.  I've tried the reward based system where you promise yourself something positive or enjoyable if you do something now rather than putting it off, but ultimately I find myself weighing up the two outcomes and the idea that I don't achieve the reward usually ends up winning, the motivation isn't strong enough, that and there's a lack of discipline there as you can still have the reward later without doing the work.

I've tried the ultimatum approach, where you set a condition for failure if you don't achieve your objective - but this usually ends up ineffective too as it is basically a negative reward based approach, and has the same lack of enforcement mentioned above.

I've tried the rigorous schedule approach with endless lists of smaller tasks breaking down the overall task so you can feel a sense of progress.  This one proves the most effective for me.  I have lists for everything.  Things to do and when for those that need certain times they're also on my calendar which is getting a bit crowded now, it's a busy time of year and that old saying "you can't see the forest for the trees" is ringing true.  While the list and schedule approach has proven the most effective for me, and ultimately the most organised, it still falls short since there's an underlying lack of imperative to enforcement.  When it came to academia and professional life, I achieve what I need to achieve because you either get kicked off the course or you don't get paid so there's an obvious incentive and crucially you aren't the one in control of the enforcement.

I need a better way to motivate myself to do things earlier rather than leaving it to the last minute.

Merry Christmas

Jingle Bells and festive smells,
The Yuletide is forever gay,
As the food is ate the stomach swells,
And the alcohol makes your whole world sway,

Eat, drink, and of course be merry,
Have your fill and smile with joy,
A glass of wine, port or maybe sherry,
Express yourself it's not a time to be coy,

Tis the season come one come all,
Sing and dance and eat and drink a plenty,
Embrace the warmth and bask in heaven's call,
Share a smile, a hug, or a kiss for four hours and twenty,

Good will to all men, and women too of course,
The spirit of this day transcends faith and religion,
You need no God to be happiness and love's true source,
If only for a day, forget the walls and division,

Do something good for which you can feel proud,
Spread light in a world feeling darker than ever,
Then you too can stand and say these words out loud,
This is a day we wish could truly last forever.

10 Questions for a Gay Man

Sometimes we have questions that we want to ask but we're afraid to do so.  Whether that be because we're afraid of the answer, or we're afraid of how the person we ask will take the question, or some other deterrent, when we finally get the opportunity to ask whatever we want, our minds sometimes go blank.

I am a gay man, and for the first 18 or so years of my life I had no contact with anyone who was openly gay, who identified as gay and I could have an actual conversation with.  Given that fact I've decided to create this post, which is a list of questions I had when I was younger, and questions which others often ask me now as an openly gay man.  This post is an attempt to give my point of view and my answers, in the hope that someone out there who might not have someone to ask them of, might read this and have a little more clarity in their life.

1 - When did you know you were gay?

For everyone it is different, but the answer I hear a lot from other gay men is that they just always knew.  For me I don't know what age I was when I first realised.  When I look back though, as young as 5 years old I remember having friends who were boys and friends who were girls, but there was one boy who I liked more than the others.  I didn't know what it was or why but I really liked him and just wanted to be with him all the time.  Personally I'd consider that the first inkling of knowing I was gay, but I wouldn't have it confirmed for many years to come.

2 - Did you ever think you were straight?

As I grew up I noticed that other boys around me were taking interest in girls, but I had none.  When puberty hit and I started having a sexual awakening, the thought of women didn't do anything for me - the thought of guys however did.  I knew then that I was at least turned on by the thought of gay sex and not straight sex.  Since all I was doing was masturbation which was a solo activity which I didn't speak to anyone about, I didn't resist the fact I had gay thoughts, and made no attempt to pursue straight.  There was no definitive moment I can say for sure that I knew I wasn't straight. 

3 - When did you lose your virginity?

This one is complicated for two reasons.  First is the question of what counts as sex - some say oral counts, others say only anal counts as losing your virginity.  Personally I'd say oral counts.  The second reason this is complicated is personal to me.  I'd rather not go into details about this, so suffice to say for the purpose of the question I'll define it as the first consensual time as being the time you lost your virginity.  For Oral I was 17, I was in my final year of college and it was with a guy I had a crush on for years we had finally hooked up as we knew we wouldn't see each other possibly ever after college.  For Anal I was 19 I think, it was during my second year of University but I can't remember when exactly, it was with a guy I had gotten to know.  We met online, he was older than me by about 10 years.  I had told him how much I had worked it up in my head and the nerves I had.  Prior to him I had tried with two other guys who I couldn't relax enough with and it just wouldn't happen.  I told this guy everything about my trust issues.  He was someone I felt very comfortable with.  I had known him a while and he let me set the pace and it remains to be one of the best guys I've ever had sex with.

4 - How many guys have you had sex with?

This might surprise some people, I'll be totally honest here.  Anal I've been with 3 guys that made it, and 2 guys that tried but it was a no-go.  Oral, I have lost count.  I am reasonably confident it's still double figures but I can't be certain because I lost count after 50.  I tried making a list once, and I made it to around 30, then for the next few days I kept thinking "oh and that guy from X" - yeah probably worth saying right now if you're a virgin, sex is something which ends up being a lot less of a big deal to you in the long run.  Some people do it a lot, with a lot of people, some people don't.  It's entirely up to you what you choose to do. 

5 - When did you come out?

There was a guy I went to school with, he was in my class for 7 years and then in another class but same school for 5 years.  Throughout the 12 years I knew him he was always pretty laid back and nothing really bothered him.  I told him when I was 16 because he was the one person I knew for sure wouldn't have a problem with it.  His first reaction was "oh, that explains a lot" - referring mainly to the fact I never had a girlfriend, refused to be set up with anyone, and had actively avoided social functions. 

When I was 17 in my final year of college I told my brother, and a few months later I told my mother.  My Mum's first reaction was disarray, not knowing why I was gay, or how I knew I was gay - I didn't want to have the conversation that I had hooked up with someone I felt awkward enough coming out, so I just reiterate that I knew I was.  After our first conversation and the confusion she hugged me and told me she loved me and that she always would.  She's never had a problem with it, I think her reaction was just shock.  I am not a stereotype, which I know some people might find surprising if they've never actually met me.  If you met me then you'd know that unless you knew I was gay you'd not have a clue.  My Mum thought I was straight as everyone else did.

When I told my brother he said he wouldn't tell anyone as it was nobody's business.  He never told our Mum, and by her reaction I believe that.  When I told my Mum I asked her not to tell my Dad.  I don't know whether she did or not, he never said anything at the time if she did.  I didn't come out to my Dad until I was at University.  It was in my second year.  I wrote a letter to him and sent it home.  I know that may sound like I was a coward, and to be honest there is cowardice in it, but I had so much to say and I wasn't confident that I could remember it all in person and my Dad was never one for talking on the phone to anyone so it seemed the simplest way.  I wasn't there when he read it.  All I remember was the first phone-call after it when he told me he loved me and told me not to let it stop me coming home.

When I look back on my life, my parents gave me so much freedom and let me make my own choices and be who I wanted to be and live my life the way I wanted to live - I wonder why I ever doubted how they would react.  Living all those years in the closet, not telling a single person builds up an incredible amount of anxiety that gets attached to one little detail that when you're in the closet you can feel at times it is life or death if people ever find out.  In all my years since, [I'm 28 now so that's 10ish years] I have "came out" over and over to people, it's something you never really stop doing, but you stop thinking about it.  "Oh yeah I'm gay" is often the way it ends up being dropped in passing conversation when it's relevant.  In that time I've never actually had a single person react badly, I'm thankful for that.  When I was in high school I heard rumours about guys at other schools who came out as gay and heard about how they ended up being bullied.  One guy in particular I know had to change schools because of it.  No-one in my school ever came out whilst I was at it so I have no idea how people there would have reacted.

6 - Why don't you act gay?

This one isn't always a question sometimes it's simply a statement "you don't sound gay" or "you don't look gay" etc.  This one is something people tend to struggle with who have never actually met a gay person.  Their perception of gay people mainly comes from the media, where characters accentuate certain behaviours, or they are always depicted in a similar way.  For a time in the UK for example all gay characters had a "gay lisp" to identify them as gay to the viewer.  These kind of things are negative in my opinion.  The bottom line when it comes to sexuality is that it's about who you are sexually attracted to, that's it.  Beyond that one simple thing, people are just people.  They'll have their own interests and they'll have their own views.  For every gay guy that hates football there are gay guys that love it, and there are gays that just don't care. 

The implication that being gay will mean you like a certain artist, or movie, or have a certain interest, all of these are unreliable in my experience.  One thing I see the most is the idea that all gay men are liberals - that's really not true.  I have had the misfortune of meeting some gays who are very right wing conservatives.  In a similar vein I see people who think all gay people are non-discriminatory, that they'd never be racist, or sexist etc.  That's total bullshit.  I get the reasoning behind the assumption, that having been on the receiving end of discrimination you would think they would not practice discrimination, but that's not how the world works.  I have seen gay men be sexist, racist, and discriminatory - "gays for Trump" springs to mind.  I am a feminist, but I can show you many gay men who are far from it, who epitomise male chauvinism.

7 - Do you have a lot of female friends?

I would say my friends break down to 45/45/10 as women [all sexualities] to gay men, to straight men.  I find women [whatever sexuality] the easiest to get along with.  Their thought process tends to line up with mine more than the others, I've read various theories over the years as to why that might be, some of which are very interesting reads but I think there's no real rhyme nor reason to it.  Straight men I think make up the minority of my friends for the simple reason I never really socialised in straight clubs.  I was the CTO for the LGBT society at University, my flatmate was the Treasurer, and I was friends with the President, so I was involved with a lot of LGBT events which skewed my friendships very heavily towards gay men.  I honestly don't know what way other gay guys friends balance would pan out, I've never actually asked someone this.

8 - Who's "the woman"?

I hate this question.  I find it offensive.  It usually comes from straight men when it's asked and it's their roundabout way of asking who's the top and who's the bottom but it's worded in the worst possible way.  There is no woman, I am a guy, whoever I have sex with is a guy, we are two guys.  I've had lesbians tell me they get the same question rephrased as "Which one is the man?" which just, I can't even.  I could write a whole post on this one question and everything that's wrong with it.

9 - How do I know if someone is gay?

Ask them.  It's the only way to know.  Everything else relies on outdated concepts and stereotypes and misdirection.  There's no way to know other than asking.  If you don't have the courage to ask them, ask someone close to them.  Liking certain artists etc is not an indicator.  Liking certain TV shows or characters is not an indicator.  I've watched hundreds of TV shows and liked hundreds of straight characters - I'm still gay.

10 - Can I ask you something else?

Sure, leave a comment below and I might make another one of these posts featuring it.

NHS Rant

When you start exploring Psychology, one of the things that becomes apparent quite quickly is the belief that there must be a reason for everything, and if that reason is not known, then the most likely, or the reason that seems to make the most sense, is accepted as the reason.  There's no tolerance for uncertainty and the unknown; you will rarely see a finite "It is not known why" instead there is always a clause "however studies have associated..." which in my view is a dangerous mentality.

Personally, I would rather hear the correct answer to a question or an outright statement that the correct answer is not known, than to have an answer presented that openly admits it's not correct.  I must add the condition here that this is something I feel in terms of academic study, not in terms of ideology and philosophy.  Explorative thought processes need to incorporate hypotheses and postulates to advance.   I take issue with assumptions made especially in a medical context where a definite response will be pursued based on that response.  When you are researching you pursue indefinite responses in order to find definite results.  In the context of treatment however I think it's dangerous to pursue definite action based on indefinite responses. 

To give an example, in terms of physical health, a person who has some symptoms of Cancer but has not been diagnosed Cancer, would not be treated for Cancer.  Chemotherapy would not be given to someone who might not actually have Cancer.  Yet when you leave physical health and venture into mental health there seems to be an attitude of "catch-all" conditions, where if you can't define the exact condition someone is suffering from you simply treat them for depression instead.  There is a disturbing willingness in Mental Health in the UK to assume that either stress, depression, or some physical condition is the cause of any mental problem that cannot be diagnosed precisely.

If you embrace causality, then you believe that every cause has an effect, or that every effect, has a cause, depending on which direction you are looking.  That has extended into many fields including healthcare where it has been somewhat modified to say that for every symptom there is a condition, or for every condition there are symptoms.  The interesting thing here is that when you read the former it is agreeable, that namely, for every symptom there is a condition, but, when you read the latter, something doesn't sit right and becomes immediately apparent to you - for every condition there are symptoms - your immediate thought, or mine at least, is "Well, some conditions don't have symptoms..." - this is where you begin to see the flaw in using this reasoning - healthcare just is not that simple.

Yet despite this, the notion that multiple symptoms must all correlate to a single condition, is something that seems too prevalent in the Healthcare Industry.  I should stress here I am speaking from experience of healthcare in the UK, but I would imagine this extends beyond the UK as I know a few other countries have a similar problem.  I don't like the laziness of healthcare professionals to jump to conclusions that the root of all your problems is a condition that you probably don't even have.  I don't like the fact GPs in the UK ask 3 things - do you smoke, drink, or do drugs - and if the answer to any is yes, they immediately try to link any symptoms you have to complications associated with those three.  I don't smoke, I don't do drugs, and I rarely drink, when you pass beyond those 3 questions most GPs end up in a state of confusion - that or they don't believe you and insist that you must and that those are the cause.  I dread to think what a visit to the doctor is like for people that do answer yes to any of those questions.  While these 3 tend to be the "go-to" reasons for GPs, the same mentality exists with Mental Health, there as I said above, stress, depression, or physical conditions are used as their 3 "go-to" reasons as well.

When did Healthcare become "googlised" - where the most popular result must be the one you need?  When did healthcare abandon the process of diagnosing people properly?  There have been several times I have visited a GP and had no offer of any further tests or diagnostics to try and find out what might be wrong.  GPs have effectively become a barrier to treatment rather than a gateway.  Mental Healthcare in this country is already woefully inadequate, general healthcare it seems is not far off the same fate.

I've had very positive experiences of the NHS in the past, some of which I have written about on this blog.  My overall opinion of it has been in steady decline for years now.  I know many people are going to immediately retort that the NHS needs more money.  It doesn't.  I've worked for the NHS.  The problems with the NHS are down to systemic failures, an idiotic Trust based structure that duplicates and triplicates work and propagates a postcode lottery, obfuscated policies and procedures that create goose-chase accountability where it's nigh on impossible to find out who is responsible for key services, and the widespread waste and mismanagement of resources.  I have seen millions spent on unnecessary purchases, computer systems that cost billions which the majority of staff hate and many don't even know how to use because they are so badly designed and are often counter-intuitive; all this whilst primary care suffers, acute facilities close, and other services are outsourced to community organisations and third party private companies.

Unemployment Figures in the UK

A few months ago, the BBC and other news outlets in the UK took an editorial decision to report the headline unemployment figure by itself and no longer report the claimant count in tandem.  That decision was I believe flawed, and ultimately represents a move away from reporting statistics and into the realm of propaganda.  I'll explain why I believe this below and let you decide for yourself who is being truthful.

Firstly it's important to know what these two statistics are and where they come from.  The first is the headline Unemployment Rate which is calculated by the Office for National Statistics using a mathematical model of the labour force survey.  The second is the Claimant Count which is a figure produced by the Department for Work and Pensions which states the number of people claiming benefits seeking work.  The former is an extrapolation from a survey of 40,000 households and has a confidence of +/- 79,000.  The latter is a statistic produced from the number of claims issued for benefits seeking work.  The former is an estimate, and the latter is a statement.

The difference here is crucial.  If you were told that your bank balance "rose" by £30 last month, with small print saying that figure may be as much as £79 wrong in either direction, the reality is that your bank account could have risen by £109 or fallen by £49.  If you had the choice between seeing your actual account statement each month and seeing the balance, or being told an estimate of how much your account went up or down, which would you choose to see?

This article from the BBC claimed that UK unemployment "fell" between May and July - that's based on the Office for National Statistics figure.  However if you look at the Claimant Count figure for the same period, unemployment rose by 15,100 people.  You might also notice that 7 out of the last 8 months reported a rise in claimants and the one month fall was a drop of 500 people - totalling 67,100 for the 8 month period.  Using August as a particular example the BBC reported a "55,000 fall in unemployment" - based on the Office for National Statistics figure, and even mentions the claimant count in passing but doesn't report the claimant count figure, which if you look at the link above for August was a rise of 9,900 people.  The difference between the headline estimate figure of 55,000 fall and the real figure of a 9,900 rise, is a 64,900 which is within the 79,000 confidence of the mathematical model.

So, there you have it.  On the one hand, a figure that is an estimate which can be wrong by 79,000 either way, which is now the primary method of reporting unemployment, and on the other hand you have the actual figure for unemployment claims produced by the government itself from the department itself responsible for unemployment, from the actual number of people claiming those benefits - which is no longer being reported by the media, because it conflicts with the estimate.

So who's lying to you?

I have written about this in a previous post when I mentioned the fine line these media outlets walk, knowing what they can report and how to report it in a way that they can be misleading without being held accountable for it.

I'll leave you with one thought to dwell on.  If you were told each month that your bank account rose by £30 when in reality it fell by £10, what would you do after a year when you look in your account and find out you have £120 less than when you started when you were expecting it to be £360 more? - A difference of £480.

You're not OK

I don't like it when people tell me what I am thinking or what I am feeling because the majority of times when people do it they're wrong.  In reality those people tell me what they think I am thinking or feeling rather than actually listening to me, or asking me.  I know how frustrating this can be to be on the receiving end of, because it is patronising when other people think they know you better than you know yourself.  That's the preface to this post.

On the flip side there are times when we delude ourselves.  When we convince ourselves we are okay when in reality we are really not.  Those who know us well can usually see right through this facade because we behave in a way that betrays what we say.  We say we're fine but we are quieter than usual or we say we're feeling great and we put on a smile for the world to see but they see us when we think no-one is looking and they can see we're not happy.

Right now I feel pretty level, not ecstatic but not despairing.  In this mindset I am quieter than usual and a lot more observant.  I look at other people closer than I normally would.  I've been in this position many times in my life and it has taught me a lot about other people and their behaviour.  You will never hear more than when you stop speaking.  What I have struggled with however is knowing how to approach someone when I can see they're not okay.  I don't know how to avoid being patronising.  I know people say just to ask how someone feels and talk to them but in my experience people are generally reluctant to speak about their feelings when they aren't positive.  "I'm fine" is a difficult response to handle when you know it's a lie.

Mental Health is an issue that has become more prominent in recent years in the UK but in many ways I feel it is still taboo.  The negative connotations outweigh the desire for a positive path forward for many; the dark clouds of negativity swirl and descend into a spiral that stops people from seeing the light, hiding blue skies with a vortex comprised of everything that's weighing them down.  Words like "depressed" aren't taken with weight and are dismissed by many as synonymous with words like "tired", "bored", and "sad", to name but a few.  A lack of understanding breeds ignorance of the true nature of depression, that it's more than these words, that it's not something you can talk yourself out of or go down the pub and have a few drinks with mates and you'll be fine.

When these issues go undiagnosed the impact they have on our lives are deepened with time.  Like most conditions they become harder to treat if left unchecked.  To that end a new paradigm is needed when it comes to mental health.  Not just in terms of how we diagnose conditions, or treat them, but in the way we see them in society as a whole.  We need to break away from the mentality that doesn't treat this as a serious issue.  We need to break away from the mentality that we can't say "I'm not okay" without feeling shame or feeling weak.  Above all this we need to break away from the mentality of hostility we hold when people say we're not okay.  If I can do anything to change the way people look at mental health then at the very least I can do that.  To recognise that if someone says it to me, it's not because they are trying to be patronising but because they care enough to say it and because they see something in me that makes them feel concern.  That's not something I or anyone else should be discouraging.

So if you are okay, and someone thinks you're not, then let them know, but thank them for their concern.  If you think someone is not okay, then talk to them, share your concern, and if they react negatively as I have done in the past, do not let it discourage you from showing that same concern for others.  Don't ignore your instincts, trust them, and if you care about someone, no matter who they are, no matter how close you are then show them.

"Keep Calm" - Fuck Off

2016 has not been a productive year for me.  It didn't start well, for health reasons I wasn't able to get much done for a few months, after which yet more health concerns racked my mind, this time that of a very close friend.  The year itself beyond these preoccupations was littered with events around the world that drew focus and attention on a level that has never been so hard to dismiss.  "Keep Calm and Carry On" as they say has at times proven to be the most difficult thing to do.

I do find myself asking why we have to keep calm though.  When you stop and think about it, panic, and fear, are perfectly normal reactions to worrying situations.  These responses are shared not only by humans but by a magnitude of animals we share this planet with.  Really when it comes down to it "Keep Calm and Carry On" really means "Repress It Don't Address It" which is a typically British response to problems.  Is it healthy though?  I know people will argue that panicking achieves nothing, but is that actually true?   Or is it simply seen as such because panic is typically seen as a negative emotion.  I would argue, if you look at crying, a behaviour which was also typically seen as being negative and of no benefit to an individual, and consider the fact that it has been shown that crying can actually be beneficial and therapeutic then consider the fact you wouldn't dream of telling someone at a funeral to stop crying, because something horrible happened where crying is a perfectly reasonable response, so why is the same mentality not extended to moments when moments of equal magnitude happen worthy of panic?

One could argue that most of the negativity associated with panic is to do with control and the idea that someone in a panic is hard to control; if we define the scope of behaviours we are allowed to exhibit as being within the limited scope of behaviours which we can consciously control then we would exhibit very little emotion if any at all. 

I would argue in moments of distress panic is an acceptable response because in the very least it shows you comprehend the severity of the situation.  Only once you accept the severity of a situation can you actually approach it with the weight that is needed.  To "keep calm" is to repress this, and to approach all situations with the same brevity.  I do not believe you should approach a mass shooting with the same mentality you would approach dropping a bottle of wine in a supermarket.  The extremity of your response should be proportionate to the severity of the situation you find yourself in.

So if you want to panic, then do so.  It's perfectly acceptable to show emotion.  Don't "Keep Calm and Carry On" because that's bullshit, it's repression.  It's a message that originated in Britain during the Second World War to motivate people.  Let's be clear here, this was propaganda at the time and it still is, it's repression of emotion.  Do you honestly believe people sitting in shelters beneath the streets of London during the Blitz weren't shitting themselves, weren't worrying about their futures, weren't worrying if they'd surface to find their homes in rubble, and weren't sitting thinking they might go to sleep that night and never wake up again?  Fuck off and don't be so condescending.  Emotion is not a crime.  Repressing it is not healthy.

Normalization of TV Characters

SPOILER ALERT:  This post contains plot points about The Big Bang Theory seasons 1 through 10.

There's a TV show called 'The Big Bang Theory' which I used to love, primarily focused on the story of two guys who could only be described as socially awkward.  One was named Sheldon and the other was named Leonard.  From the start they were portrayed as social outcasts because of their high intelligence - Sheldon more so than Leonard as he himself would profess.  Leonard was straight, that much was made obvious from the start as a love interest was introduced for him, whereas Sheldon was somewhat ambiguous at first, portrayed more so as asexual, someone with no experience of or interest in sexual attraction.  The premise of the show centred around the difficulties their professions caused them in terms of their social lives.  Sheldon was a Theoretical Physicist and Leonard was an Experimental Physicist.  Their circle of friends was very small and consisted of Howard and Raj, an Aerospace Engineer and an Astrophysicist respectively who were also social outcasts.

The show is now in its 10th season and during that time the characters have grown quite a bit.  One thing I have a problem with however is the idealisation of the characters' lives.  Each of the original four characters, and the periphery characters associated with them, have been "normalised" through the course of the 10 seasons.  Howard who was arguably the most repugnant of the four when it came to love interests, borderline perverted at times, was married off and is now expecting a child.  Raj who was physically incapable of speaking to women because of his social anxiety was also turned into a character that not only has no problem speaking to women anymore, they often want him to shut up now.  Raj is perhaps the most offensive transformation in the show to me as it completely undermines the struggle people have with social anxiety, his character experienced heartache that miraculously cured his anxiety and made him no only able to speak to women but actively lead conversations and speak with a confidence that betrays the notion he ever struggled in the first place.

Leonard was also married off to his love interest - Penny, someone who the show actually points out explicitly in one episode set at a convention how incredulous the storyline between them became.  As for Sheldon, the character who struggled the most with social interaction, unable to comprehend many human emotions and someone who arguably is depicted with many symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome throughout the early seasons - although the show's creators have explicitly stated he is not on the Autism Spectrum.  Nevertheless the depiction of the apparent ease the character has in overcoming his difficulties is rather unrealistic.

I do realise that the show is meant to be a sitcom, and I do realise many people will argue it's not meant to be realistic, but I would argue the word "sitcom" is a portmanteau of "situational comedy" and the show through its 10 seasons thus far has now basically abandoned the entire situation the comedy was derived from.  Through the course of 10 seasons the characters have been normalised to the point where they are now four "normal" people as defined by the mainstream media's narrow definition of what it is to be normal.  The show has reached a point where, for the most part, it's not funny anymore.  The show was never meant to be about laughing at the characters, but laughing at the situation they found themselves in and depicting that.  What it has become is a homogenised television series that at times becomes indistinguishable from the gargantuan mountain of crap the these networks purvey.

Batch Processing versus Real Time Processing Mentalities

In computing there are a number of different approaches to processing information.  Two rather antiquated concepts that for a time formed the fundamental approaches were Batch Processing and Real Time Processing.  I've been thinking about thought processes and how we as people often mirror the machines we create and act in the same way.  Specifically when it comes to workload and our approaches to repetitive tasks these two processing approaches can be found in human behaviour.

In computing, real time processing is the approach whereby you process data as and when it becomes available, whilst batch processing is the approach whereby you save data up until you reach a specified level before you process it all at once.  These processing approaches can be seen in human behaviour in things as simple as our washing.  People who hold a real time processing mentality will wash their clothes as they go along, doing smaller loads more often.  Whereas, those who hold a batch processing mentality will let their washing pile up until they reach a critical mass, either defined by the capacity of the washing machine, or until you run out of clean underwear for example.

Beyond daily tasks however, the distinction between the two mentalities interests me because I don't think it's accurate to say people conform to one or the other exclusively.  I've seen people who do certain tasks daily without complaint yet they let others pile up.  Personal and Professional lives provide a wealth of behaviours to examine.  Take shredding as another example.  I've seen many people, myself included, amass a mountain of paperwork to shred until they have the time to sit down and do it all at once.  The truth is if you actually did it as you went along you wouldn't need to alot a time to do it. 

Beyond computing, this concept extends into other industries, with equivalent approaches existing such as marginal accounting for example, where the cost of a purchase isn't just the principle cost but the associated expenditures factored in to the figure - "light bulbs" costing £50 on a balance sheet doesn't actually mean they spent £50 on a light bulb it means the cost of the bulb plus the resources used to purchase, fit, and dispose of the old bulbs - "parts and labour" in essence; this is equivalent to real time processing as it factors in complete cost of activity as you go.  The obverse of this is financial accounting, this is transaction based and states the actual cost of the light bulb which is settled later by accounts payable, the additional costs of labour etc appear separately as transactions in and of themselves.  This is equivalent to batch processing as whole amounts are exchanged at once to resolve outstanding balances.

The question this raises is which should you actually pursue personally and professionally?  Which is more efficient?  Is it better for example to write one article every day, or is it better to write a month's worth of articles in the first week of the preceding month?  Do you work better doing 5 different things each day, or would you work better devoting a day to each thing?  What do you do in a gym?  Do you have a full body workout you do each time you visit or do you have days where you target a specific area? 

At its base: "Bit by bit"  vs "All at once"

How can you define a game?

How can you define a game?  There are many things in life we do that must adhere to set rules but we wouldn't class all of these as games.  In our professional lives we have to follow rules, policies and procedures in everything we do, yet we wouldn't consider these games.  Likewise when it comes to fun and enjoyment, it's hard to use these as determining factors for games because there are many games we must play in life that aren't enjoyable.

There is the idea of players being the defining aspect of games, where a game is defined by the number of people that play it - single player, multiplayer, etc, but even then, if you choose not to play the game, you can still be part of it.  Others can play games with you even if you don't want to, likewise you can be placed in a single player game and refuse to play, the fact you refuse to play does not nullify the game, you simply lose the game because you never tried.

The next question, assuming you managed to define what a game is, would be, when does a game stop being a game?  If you explore game theory, one theme that recurs when trying to define a game is the existence of a winning strategy.  That is to say something you can do in order to win the game, a strategy which if adhered to religiously can allow you to play a perfect game.  What I find fascinating about this is the question that arises when you accept this as the defining aspect of gaming - what happens when you memorise the winning strategy?  Is it still a game if you always win, never lose, and never fault?  Take the Rubik's Cube for example, for most people the game of the cube is trying to solve it, but when you learn the algorithms which can be used to solve the cube, the random and strategic elements are removed and it simply becomes a memory test.  If you can lift the cube every time and solve it every time remembering the algorithm, is it still a game?

By extension of this concept you can also ask, if there exists no winning strategy and the game is endless, which you can therefore never win, is it still a game?  Taking Tetris as an example, the game is one that advances in difficulty as the player progresses, in some cases depending on the version the game can be endless, where you simply continue until you fail.  Is this still a game if you can never actually win?

So we are brought back to our original question, how can you define a game?  When does it start and end being a game?

Mental Itch

Every now and then I get an itch that needs to be scratched.  Not a literal itch but a figurative itch, one that centres around mental exercise.  I wouldn't call it boredom as such, because I wouldn't exactly say I don't fill my time with plenty of things to keep me busy.  No this is more of a desire or a craving for something mentally challenging; like a craving is a desire for a certain type of food, this is a desire for a certain type of thought.

When I get a mental itch the things I scratch it with are strategic, mathematical, or logical.  Real Time Strategy games are a great place to start but like most things I am often left to look for older games as newer ones tend to be less challenging.  Mathematical puzzles like Sudoku are also very effective, as are logic puzzles.  One of my favourite PC games when it comes to strategy is Caesar III, which was developed in the late 90s by a company called Impressions Games and published by Sierra Entertainment.  They created a whole series of City Building games but the Caesar series was my favourite and Caesar III was the best of the series in my opinion.  I get an urge to play this game every now and then because it challenges me.  Despite knowing some optimum strategies there are still ways in which the game can challenge me mainly through challenge maps created with the Map Editor which can be used to set ridiculously high goals with the odds stacked against you. 

I've always had this itch come back.  Whenever I feel like I haven't been challenged much or if I feel like I'm reaching a point where I'm just going through the motions.  Like I said I wouldn't call it boredom because it's not a lack of things to do, I have plenty and I immerse myself in that work until it's complete, this is more about having something different to focus on that presents me with something dynamic to engage with. 

The strange thing is, while you'd probably associate this with attention and distractions, I wouldn't view it that way.  These aren't things I do to procrastinate, on the contrary they are things I do after I have completed my work to unwind.  I've never quite understood how something that makes me think and focus helps me unwind but it does.  Then again I guess the fact it occupies my mind to a point where I don't think about the work I was doing or anything else for that matter, could perhaps explain it, but it's still increased activity with the aim of decreasing activity - it's a contradiction I know, but it works.

One thing I do notice when I go through phases such as this, is that I find myself a lot more coherent which helps increase my productivity and this actually accelerates the work I was doing in the first place.  I've touched on this wave of energy before when writing about awakenings I just wish there was a reliable way to reproduce it.  This behaviour without the precedent of the itch doesn't lead to the same outcome if anything it has the opposite effect.  The mind really is an unusual thing, at times I often wonder if there really is such a thing as a soul, and that the will of the body and the will of the mind represent the conflict between the two.  I know some people don't believe in any such thing I just feel there are times when you can feel like a completely different person and be entirely conscious of that yet powerless to control it.

Dance like nobody is watching

Do you dance when you're alone?  When no-one else is around and you listen to your favourite music, do you ever get lost in the moment and feel free?

One of the things I see a lot in single people is the anxious feeling that others will judge them for how they behave, so they alter their behaviour to be close to what they think attracts others.  On the flip side what I see from people in long term relationships and those who are married is an honesty and openness about each others' behaviour. 

Some people say you find love when you stop looking for it, or that it finds you.  I have a theory the reason that's true for some people is down to this alteration in behaviour.  When you're not looking, you stop trying to be something you're not, and embrace who you are.  You stop trying to be the person that you think attracts others and just be yourself. 

If openness and honesty, and above all else, self-acceptance, is what ultimately leads you to happiness then I think the only path you can really pursue is the path of least resistance.  In other words, stop listening to what other people tell you to do or say, and do what feels right to you.  Trust your own judgement.

So dance like no-one's watching, because that's what feels natural to you, don't dance the way others want you to, or stop yourself from dancing at all.  At the end of the day all that achieves is to turn yourself into a puppet, of which you let everyone but yourself pull the strings.

Sleep

I have written about my eye condition (Nystagmus) on this blog before and the impact they have on my life.  In particular I have mentioned my struggles with insomnia and sleep patterns in general.  I've been thrown out of sync the last week or so to the extent that I find myself awake and 3 a.m. wondering about the most random things.  The problem with my insomnia isn't the fact I can't sleep however, it's the prolonged tiredness that inevitably ensues since I can't get enough sleep.  That can be battled to an extent with energy drinks etc but you can't use them indefinitely and they only make things worse in the end so they aren't a practical solution.

I started to think about what it is I actually do with my time when I can't sleep.  I listen to music, I watch old TV shows, I play games, I write, or do puzzles like crosswords and sudoku to try and slip away.  I don't have the energy in those moments to do much that's in any way productive.  This is when I stopped to wonder, if you could abolish the need for sleep, without any negative consequence, what would you do with the extra time? 

I have been asking this question of others and the answers are for the most part inspiring and optimistic, but in other cases they are somewhat depressing.  The most depressing answer I have had people give is that they would spend longer in work.  That to me is conflicting because the thing most people complain about in relation to their jobs is their work-life balance, and the fact that their lives are often put in second place with work first.  I can't imagine why you would want to spend even more time in work if you suddenly found yourself with 8 to 10 extra hours to do whatever you wanted each day.

Some of the more inspiring ideas are those which seek to further themselves through studying or through increased activities.  Learning new skills, languages, getting physically fit, even just having the time to spend cooking food you actually want to eat, and spending time with family and friends are among the replies that make me smile. 

On the other hand I have to think about expectations.  While we may think about what we would do with that extra time, I have to stop and think about what others would expect of us if we had that extra time.  "There aren't enough hours in the day" is a phrase that is repeated many times but what if there were more hours suddenly for everyone, would the extra time we gain actually be our own, or would society change to compensate for that?  Would we be expected to work longer days in work because we don't need sleep and rest?  With many people working 12 hour shifts sometimes more as it is in the current environment, what would they do under another?  Would 24 hour shifts become a reality?  Could you realistically be expected to work an entire day?  I am not saying you'd work 24/7/365, but the maximum duration of a single shift instead, would it rise to 24 hours rather than 12?

This question is very reminiscent of "And then what?" posed in many works of fiction.  In the movie 'Death Becomes Her' starring Meryl Streep, Goldie Hawn, and Bruce Willis, the former two take a potion that lets them live forever, young and beautiful, but not without impunity; they then try and convince the latter to take the same potion but he poses the same question "And then what?" - if he lived forever he'd never grow old, he'd have to watch everyone else grow old and die.  The reality of the question hits and he refuses to take the potion.  I find myself wondering whether sleep isn't just something we have to do to stay alive, but whether it's something we need to stay sane.

How are you?

There's a fine line to walk between what people can take and what you can give.  The two aren't always equal, and when you are someone like me, who doesn't really hold back, there's a consciousness you have to hold when you meet new people for the first time.  That line is defined by a question, which version of "you" do you want them to know?  The real you?  Or the outer shell of you?

This isn't about deception, or the desire to mislead people, or even the desire to be something you're not.  It's not even about sexuality, although arguably there are parallels there for people still in the closet.  What I am actually talking about is that line between answers given to the question "How are you?" there's two answers you can give really, one is a short answer, usually a pleasantry, that you don't really mean "Yea, I'm good thanks", a shallow reply, the other is the actual answer, how you really feel, what you really think, the depth.  Which we give tends to rely on whether we think the question was asked with a genuine interest in the answer, or just someone making small talk.

Personally this is something I have always struggled with.  I'm not very good at pretending I am okay, when I am really not.  I'm not very good at pretending there's nothing on my mind when there is - I tend to be a lot quieter than usual and people that know me well know straight away something is going on inside my head.  I'm not very good at holding back when I have an interest in things.  When I was a kid, my greatest aspiration was to know everything about everything.  I realised as I grew that this wasn't possible, so I settled for knowing as much as I could about the things that interest me.  As a result I ask a lot of questions, and I find it hard when to know when to stop.

When I ask people how they are, it's because I'm genuinely interested in the answer.  The real answer, I don't care about the face you present to the rest of the world, I can see through that.  I learned a long time ago people don't like it when they know you can, so I tend not to comment on it, I just bear it in mind.  There's a song I love called "I See Right Through To You" and it's something I've tried to do with people I meet, I try to ignore what they present to the rest of the world and actually look at the person.  I try to ignore what other people say about them because I know how wrong people have been about me and I know how detached from the shell a person's core can actually be.

I find it hard to feign interest in things I am not interested in - which is part of the reason I realised it would never be practical to know everything about everything, apart from the issue of the magnitude of that task, the reality that some things will be boring as hell to you hits you quite early. 

With all this in mind, I know that the things I am interested in aren't going to appeal to everyone.  That's part of the reason why I don't see a point in hiding them.  I prefer to be honest about the things that interest me and accept that some people will have zero interest, and I don't mind that, because I know there will be some people out there that are interested, and to be honest I'd rather talk about my interests with people that share them than try and make someone talk about them who doesn't care.

That doesn't mean I write off people that don't share my interest though, and it doesn't mean they have to share mine in reciprocation if I happen to share theirs.  I don't think polar opposites ever truly exist.  No matter how different two people can seem, there will be something, somewhere, that they are both interested in.

The thing that sparked this entire post off was a reflection on the nature of the topics I write about here.  I've been reading other peoples' blogs and they all have themes, narratives that loosely, or tightly, link their posts together, whereas this blog is basically a prime example of cognitive dissonance and disarray.  On the other hand though, that does reflect me as a person.  I have a wide range of interests and I have a wide range of beliefs, many of which on the face of it conflict with each other.  I like the description "a swirling mass of contradictions" - it doesn't all make sense or tie together, but, that's life really, there will be times when every day feels the same and other times when you'll find yourself in situations you never saw coming.

2016 has been a year of uncertainty.  Some will roll their eyes here, but I'm a Taurus, and while I don't put a lot of stock in horoscopes one thing I do identify with is the stubbornness of the Bull, the disdain for change and upheaval, and the understanding that a Bull can be intimidating to people that don't know it.  I am under no allusion, some people who don't know me can find me hard to take, or just too much.  This year has been a year of uncertainty which was a change for me and I didn't like that.  In time though I've become a lot more comfortable with it because in a way, having constant uncertainty, actually provides a degree of certainty. 

So the question "How are you?" the short answer, is "I'm okay, thanks" and the long answer, is this entire post.  I'm actually smiling for the first time in ages.

Insurance vs Assurance

Insurance is a safety net, there in case of the event in which you fall so that it can catch you.  Assurance is the feeling you get knowing the net is there, which fills you with confidence.  Assurance of knowing that should you fall you will survive is what leads you to take greater risks and accomplish tasks which otherwise you would never dream of doing.  Except, while all this revolves around possibilities, the only way you can actually know if the safety net actually works is to test it out, which involves consciously deciding to fall to see what happens.  In that moment your doubt is what comes to mind, the assurance of the net is suddenly taken away even though the net remains, you don't know whether it will work or not.

In life there are many times we seek assurances from others.  In love, in work, in finance, and even just from our friends and family through emotional and physical support when we need it.  The question is how do you know who and what is strong enough to support you, if you never test the net?  There are times when it's impractical or unthinkable to even engineer the scenarios where you would need the net to begin with.  For example the emotional support you would need in the event of a close loved one dying, there's no way in good conscience to actually test that net.  What you are left with is the realisation that some nets are never going to be tested until the moment you actually need them and if they don't work then you will hit the ground hard.

In these scenarios where you can't test your net, you place faith in others.  You do so blindly, and without assurance.  For many of us this comes to represent our lives and the choices we make as we walk along our tightrope.  No matter how close anyone is to us, we still walk alone.  They can't walk our path for us all they can do is offer encouragement and the promise of the safety net if you should fall.  There is of course another possibility in these scenarios one which we tend to avoid thinking about in advance of what can go wrong and only think about in that moment when we feel ourselves fall - do we want to be caught?

You might be asking yourself what is the point of having insurance if you don't use it?  What's the point of a net if you don't want to be caught?  The answer can be found when you look quite literally at insurance itself, specifically the insurance industry.  When taking claims against your insurance regardless of who was at fault, by doing so your premium usually rises.  If you translate that into the concept of insurance as a whole you could argue that perceptibly we believe the more we have to use our insurance the more it costs us in the long-run.  If this mentality takes over then even with a safety net in place there's no guarantee we'd ever use it even if we did fall which brings us back to the distinction between the two, insurance vs assurance.  If you know in advance that you probably won't use the net, or that you don't trust the net because it has never been tested, then you find yourself in the bizarre situation of having insurance without assurance.

That raises the question, what is the point of insurance if it does not reassure, and you don't actually use it when you need to? 

Alice And The Apple

If an apple can be red or yellow or green, and Alice would like an apple so she asks for an apple and receives an apple; then, if Alice is disappointed because she wanted a red apple, what colour is the apple if the apple is what it is but what it is isn't what it should be nor what it could be, and therefore wouldn't be what it should be but couldn't be what it could be, that is to say it isn't what it should be and it is what it shouldn't be but what it shouldn't be isn't what it could be but is what it couldn't be?

A) Red
B) Yellow
C) Green
D) Blue

Token Knowledge

I have written before about intelligence, specifically the point that intelligence and knowledge are not equatable.  Intelligence is about thought processes not about what you actually think.  It is measured through abstract tests which assess your ability to comprehend complex concepts, not your level of prior knowledge.  Yet despite this distinction there seems to be a misbelief which is perpetuated that knowledge implies intelligence.  I can write a program that can list every single word in the dictionary, its meaning, and use in sentences, that doesn't mean that program would be intelligent, all it is doing is reiterating information.  Intelligence would be embedded into the program if it was able to learn new words for itself, comprehend their meaning, and use them in sentences without the programmer having to provide that information explicitly, but rather through self discovery and exploration.

There are a lot of people who cling to this idea that the more knowledge you attain the "smarter" you are, it's the driving force behind some forms of education which completely discard comprehension and simply test the student's ability to regurgitate what they were fed in class.  It's also the way in which people try to convince others of their intelligence and I see it quite a bit on social media and in real life in the way people speak and what they speak about.  While the facade can be quite convincing it occasionally cracks when you see people who think they know everything about a particular subject speaking with an authority that betrays the shallow pool of knowledge they actually hold on a subject.  These are the people who when questioned about the things they say aren't able to explain their point of view beyond a few stock question and answers, and ultimately the reason is because they don't actually understand what they claim to. 

For me personally this is easiest to identify when I see people speak about things I know quite a bit about.  As an example when I first went to University, one of the modules we covered was programming in Java.  I knew quite quickly who actually knew what they were talking about versus those who tried to convince others that they did.  As a disclaimer here I should point out I have written a book on Java, I have contributed to open source community development in the past as part of Open JDK.  I had a level of understanding that surpassed the module when I was at University, something which was quickly noted by the lecturer to the point where I was asked to provide support on student forums.  If you are wondering I passed the module at 95%, my 5% failure came from lack of documentation on my coursework, something which I have always found difficulty with.  I find it hard to draw a line between too little and too much.  That in itself will be apparent from many of the posts on this blog.

What I find the most interesting about this pretence is the concept of token knowledge.  That is to say, pieces of knowledge that people cling to and reiterate time and again to try and make themselves appear smarter than they are, the failure comes when they apply that knowledge to situations where it's not relevant at all.  Even when challenged on that point they still can't accept or admit that failure.  Situations like this often result in hostility or the base form of defence - personal attacks.  The reason they resort to personal attacks in those situations is because they themselves see it as a personal attack for someone to point out the fact they are wrong.

There's one example I find the most prevalent and that's the use of the word "ironic" and the perceived meaning of the word.  Those who understand the word rarely use it, which is in itself ironic since the vast majority of people who use it have no idea what it actually means.  This can be epitomised by Alannis Morissette.  She and Glen Ballard wrote a song called 'Ironic' in which there is a series of lyrics that detailed unfortunate events and instances of bad luck.  Lyrics such as: "Like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife" - not one of these lyrics is actually an instance of irony.  They are all simply bad luck and misfortune.  The irony to be found in the song is the fact that the title implies one thing, and the literal words imply the complete opposite.  That, is the definition of irony, yet you can see people who have heard the song or perpetuate the idea that things which are unfortunate or bad luck or bad timing constitute irony.  They are the people who misuse the word and demonstrate the cracks in their facade.  They are the people who think they do a good job of convincing others of their intelligence when in reality anyone who really is, can see right through the facade.

The Cost of Learning

One thing that annoys me about my time at University is the fact that other people seem to think it was easy.  When it comes to finance, myself and many others came out the other side of University with a degree and a mountain of debt.  Time and again I hear the same response, usually from people who have never been or who went a very long time ago: "But you only pay it back when you earn so much" - bitch University is expensive, the loans are not enough to live off, most students have part time jobs, or full time jobs, and they have credit cards and overdrafts to be able to survive.  It takes more money to make it through University than you get in loans.  It is not possible to make it through University on student loans without another source of income, either from savings, or employment, or support from family and friends.

I went to University in 2006 and in order to get there I had to sell shares and use an overdraft on my bank account until my student loan came in.  Once it did, the bulk of it disappeared immediately in accommodation fees to the University.  It was only by getting a student account with an interest free overdraft that I was able to survive my first year.  At the end of the year that student account was overdrawn by almost a thousand pounds.  My first year wasn't exactly wild either, the only social events I really went to were during freshers with friends from halls and beyond that mostly events run by the LGBT Society at University.

While the first year of University left a financial impact on me it was only the beginning.  In my second year my rent in London was £552 per [4 week] month which was £7,176 for the year, that was excluding bills and was a sizeable step up from my first year.  Overdrafts increased, credit card usage increased, and I worked a full time job in retail at Woolworths to make it through and I still came out of second year in more debt than I had after my first year.

My final year was a similar story and by the end I was in almost £6k debt.  While the bulk of that was interest free it did not stay that way.  Some began charging interest after graduation, some deferred it for a year.  I walked away from University with a degree and a mountain of debt, real debt, not student loan debt.  The latter of which if you are interested sent me my annual statement a few weeks ago letting me know I owe them just under £32k.  I studied at University when tuition fees were £3k a year, and when maintenance grants were still a thing - which I qualified for on top of my loans and did not have to repay.  If I had studied at University just a few years later after reforms were made I would have had to pay fees of £9k a year, and I would have to repay higher maintenance loans wich were introduced to make up for the grants that were scrapped.  All in all, with interest my student loan balance today would be sitting at £58k.

University costs money and the loans do not cover all expenses.  Education is treated as a commodity and there are often times I find myself asking what was the point.  There are dozens of Universities in the UK who confer degrees that are not worth the paper they are written on.  There are thousands of graduates every year who leave University to find themselves unemployed.  Students are sold a degree on the promise of the better chance at employment it gives them and the higher up the career ladder they can climb and the promise they won't have to repay their debts until they earn a certain amount.  Students are being mis-sold their degrees.  Thousands graduate University to unemployment, their degrees don't help them enter their fields, employers want experience not education, and they leave with a mountain of debt on top of their student loans which they do have to repay immediately regardless of income, and when you are unemployed that seals you into a debt trap.

If I was to reform higher education I would introduce a higher education curriculum and a University license which every higher education institution would have to adhere to and hold respectively.  Failure to adhere to a standardised curriculum to ensure quality and failure to retain their license would result in Universities being closed.  Education needs to have its benefits restored.  The purpose of education is to give people a better chance in life, if it isn't doing that it's not working.  People often get lost in criticism of primary and secondary education and scrutiny of their national curriculum and the relevance of the subjects they are taught - this scrutiny needs to be applied to further and higher education as well.  The same arguments levied at compulsory education as to relevance, and quality, and accountability of those delivering the courses needs to extend to all education.  The fact that higher education has survived this long escaping that scrutiny when it costs so much to pursue not just to the individuals but to government and to taxpayers is nigh on incredulous.

The Right Way

In life there are many things we have to do which come with instruction manuals detailing the steps we must follow to complete the tasks.  For every task that comes with an instruction manual however there are hundreds more that come with no instruction at all.  This is where education comes into play, both formal through academia at schools, colleges, and universities, and informal through life experience, or as some call it "The University of Life" both play the same role.  What we learn through both routes can fall into three main areas, the right way, the wrong way, and your way.  While they may often overlap, for the most part we never truly adhere to one and only one.

We could spend an entire series of posts debating the definitions of right and wrong but for the sake of brevity, for now, let's just define 'right' as the way in which the task was intended to be completed, either by design or precedence.  We can define 'wrong' in this sense as the way that was never intended to be used.  It's important to stop and note here that we are only addressing the "how" of this process, and not the "what" of the result, in other words we're not concerning ourselves with whether or not these methods work or achieve the task we set out to accomplish, we're only concerning ourselves with the way in which we try to do so.

When it comes to your own way of doing things, often this is the most fluid of the three, forever adapting to changes and developing micro-solutions to micro-problems that evolve over time.  I have a strong background in programming so I can speak from a software development perspective one area these divergences are prevalent is in the software development life cycle.  Software development is discussed in an academic setting in terms of paradigms, set methodologies with steps to be followed to achieve the task.  The problem is that most of these paradigms aren't followed in practice, and even when corporations try to follow them the practical application is at best, barely relatable to the paradigm supposedly in use.  In software development as with everywhere else in life, "my way" wins out in the end.  You end up weaving between right and wrong and adding alterations to your process until eventually it does not resemble either.

While this is the way we pursue many things in life, it poses a question, at what point should you stop trying to pursue your way and accept the "right" way, even when it seems wrong to you?  Some might argue that as long as the same objective is met then how you achieve it is irrelevant but there are so many instances where you can demonstrate the negative consequences of failing to consider the ramifications of your actions that the argument of how short sighted this is seems self evident.  If we go beyond theory however we can demonstrate with simple examples how doing something the wrong way, can achieve a goal yet produce an entirely different experience.

To pick perhaps the most relatable example you can look at Ice Cream.  As children we learn very quickly that there is a right and a wrong way to eat ice cream.  The reason we learn this quickly is because it punishes you immediately for eating it the wrong way.  You need to pace yourself when you eat ice cream and if you don't then brain freeze immediately sets in and punishes you for doing it wrong.  If you only ever ate ice cream quickly you would forever experience pain from doing so and never experience the pleasure others get from it.  It is only through eating it slowly that you learn to appreciate its flavour and gain pleasure in the process. 

One of the things I enjoy most in life is trance music, and it's also one of the things I find others are very critical of because they see it from a different perspective.  Like ice cream which punishes you for eating it fast, they try to listen to trance music the way they do any other music and fail to gain any pleasure from it, in many cases they outright say it causes the opposite.  Trance music is like ice cream, if you try to listen to it the way you listen to all other music you'll never appreciate it.  Just as you other foods quickly and must make exceptions for ice cream to discover its finer points, you have to make exceptions for trance music and approach it with a different mentality. 

The purpose of trance at its core is to induce a trance like state, hence the name.  Repetition in trance music originates in the same concept of chanting and tantric meditation; the purpose is to help you let go and embrace a state of oblivion and nirvana.  Trance music requires the listener to abandon their other senses and embrace the music itself.  To feel the rhythm of a bassline dance with your heartbeat, to feel the sweet kiss of the hi-hat on your neck, whilst synthesisers whisper sweet nothings in your ears as the touch of the treble creeps and crawls across your skin tickling your hairs as they stand on end, the sweet sensations caressing you as you feel it build in anticipation of the moment when finally you hear the break and you feel yourself lifting and falling into fervent phonic euphoria.

To achieve this requires much more attention and dedication than other genres of music.  Trance is active it is not passive, you must engage with it, like a lover beckoning you to dance with them, trance holds out a hand for you to hold.  The reason drugs are so often associated with this style of music is because they offer a shortcut, allowing you to quickstep into the mentality required to appreciate this music.  I've never needed that personally, music has always been my drug and when I need to let go it has always been there for me with open arms to fall into.  The lack of appreciation others have I find comical at times because the same belief permeates their impressions, that they should be able to experience something without having to learn how to do it first.  Trance is like ice cream.  If you don't consume it right then you're destined to feel nothing but headaches and find yourself at a loss to understand why other people love it so much.

It is the lack of punishment that can make us pursue the wrong way without recourse.  We have to remember just because there are other ways to do something does not mean they are right or wrong.  This isn't even about asserting which is right or wrong this is about making people open up to the idea that there are other ways to do things and when you follow them your experience can completely change.  So maybe you should stop and think about the things you have tried in life that turned out to be entirely negative and ask yourself whether you did it right and whether your experience was the same as others.

Fantasy Worlds

Sometimes reality can seem depressing.  There are times I stop and ask myself why I bother to read the news.  Everytime I open a news website it's filled with stories of horror, sadness, violence, infuriating political posts, basically everything negative and wrong with the world.  It's very rare that news channels or websites bother covering stories that are even remotely positive.  When you stop and think about this and our behaviour - returning time and again to read these stories - it doesn't really seem that healthy.  We make excuses of wanting or needing to stay informed on what is happening in the world, but how true is that?

With more than 99% of the stories we read no matter how infuriating they may be for us we rarely do anything about it.  We say with most of these stories "well there's nothing I can do" and resign ourselves to the fact we can't change the world.  Sometimes the stories we read move us enough to be vocal about them, sharing them to social media and commenting on them voicing our disdain but what do we actually do about it?  I'm guilty of this myself, I am not trying to judge other people for reacting the same way, I understand that mentality.  What I don't understand however is why I and others continue to subject ourselves to it.  If we aren't going to do anything about the things we read about then why do we read about them at all when the only thing it achieves is to make us feel an array of negative emotions?

I ran a poll on twitter a month or two ago asking if people could go a month without reading the news.  I would define that as visiting news websites, or watching news feeds, or following news feeds through other sites.  Research on specific stories would be permitted insofar as needed for professional reasons.  The response was roughly 25/75 yes vs no.  I've done digital detoxes before in which I abstained from using certain sites for a month at a time.  I have no plans to do one for news if that's what you are expecting, the answer is no because I don't actually believe I could do it.  As much as the rest of the world can be depressing, the idea of completely cutting myself off from it and living in quiet isolation is even more depressing.

I love to write and I love to read, and when I am feeling lazy and don't want to do either, I watch instead.  Whatever the focus on my attention I find myself getting lost in other worlds.  In the worlds I create, the worlds I read about, or the worlds I see when I watch TV shows or Movies.  They are a welcome break from the reality of the world we live in.  Rewatching older shows also brings a comfort since you know what to expect, sometimes you can even quote dialogue word for word.  There have been a number of fantasy TV shows that have been vying for ratings, presenting elaborate worlds of lore for us to get lost in, perhaps none more so than Game Of Thrones.  While some might ask why is the show so popular, and why are people so fascinated by it, I think the answer is simply that it presents a world so vast and complex and detailed that you can get lost in it and forget about the real world. 

With Game of Thrones I know the story lines are not all happy, if anything Game Of Thrones is perhaps one of the darkest TV shows to have gained such popularity in a long time.  Getting lost in the worlds these stories portray isn't about getting lost in a happy or a sad setting, but simply forgetting reality.  I would argue the reason why people get enjoyment even when the stories are dark and littered with death is because it's "safe" in the respect that you know what you see is fiction, it's not real and that makes it easier to deal with difficult subjects.  The topic of death for example is introduced to the viewer very early in the series with such frequency that it makes the viewer become desensitized to it over time.  You go from "They'll be there to the end" to "They're probably going to die, I wonder how they're going to die..." remarkably quickly, so much so that you reach the point where you realise no character is safe and that any character can die, yet without the anxiety that is usually attached to such thoughts.

Reality TV vs TV Reality

I have been having a revival of sorts when it comes to old TV shows I used to watch.  The past month or so it has been the turn of Sex And The City.  Seeing the show evolve through six seasons makes me acutely aware of the time frame in which it was set.  Although I look back on the part of my life the show reminds me of most - my time as a senior in High School - the show itself was produced and aired over a longer time frame than that period of my life.  The show lasted six years in all, from 1998 to 2004.  My life completely changed during that time yet when I look back at the show I tend to associate more with a few fixed points and key moments, forgetting the fact that between those times much more happened.

This got me to thinking about how duration is a concept that is only relevant to us in the present and in anticipation of the future.  Beyond these two frames of reference, duration has little meaning to us when we look back at our lives.  When we rewatch old TV shows we can binge on them and watch the whole thing in one go if we really want to, it's only when we watch shows that are now airing or will soon air that we begin to associate time with them, more specifically the time between episodes and awareness of the fact that for many shows being a week between each episode, you actually have a life to live - we don't automatically extend our points of reference in the same way when we look back at old shows.

However, it is important to add, how long something lasted doesn't necessarily imply significance - perhaps that is why when things often come to an end in our lives we have a hard time finding closure because finding a balance or an emotional equilibrium depends on many other factors yet duration is the one we jump to most.  There's one little nugget of advice Charlotte York said in Sex And The City "It takes half the total time you were going out with someone to get over them" that epitomises this misdirection.  I don't believe that's true at all, I think the amount of time it takes to get over someone relies more on how much they meant to you, with duration having very little significance.  What she said however, ultimately being what the writers had penned in the script represents something I like to call "Hollywood wisdom" - thoughts, ideas, and beliefs that are presented to us through Movies and through TV shows [not necessarily produced in Hollywood of course] and try to influence our thinking, or which draw on perceived notions of popular thought, in other words what is deemed to be reality within the show itself.

The wisdom we see conveyed in TV shows is something which you would expect most people to take with a pinch of salt and actually think for themselves, contemplating the idea presented but ultimately forming their own.  That is what you would expect but I have the feeling that for most people that's not true.  Nowhere is this more evident than with reality TV where people completely buy into what they see and think because it's a reality show that it is unscripted and ultimately genuine.  That isn't strictly true though as you will find out if you read some of the auto biographies of people who have presented those shows, the reality is that everything first and foremost is cut for entertainment purposes with the aim of providing the most value to the production companies.  The likes of The Apprentice for example take contestants that will be the most entertaining, not those that would be best in business.  People fixate on the idea that only people who lack any real talent apply to be on these shows, dismissing the idea that an auditionee would or could be dismissed for being "too good" at the audition stage.

Once you are aware of the fact that everything is done for entertainment value and not for the sake of accuracy or sincerity you must then realise that the same applies to scripted TV shows.  The dialogue of characters isn't meant to sound as true to life as it can be, it's meant to be entertaining.  The more you hold this as true in your mind the more aware you become of how people talk to one another.  Even when you are a writer and you try to write natural dialogue there comes a point when you have to consider readability over reality.  To convey everything that needs to be conveyed your characters inevitably, invariably, end up talking to one another with language and detail that most people never will. 

This same deniability is true for characters on TV shows, as realistic as people like to believe they are, the more attention you pay to what they actually say the more you repeat the same thought "you wouldn't actually say that though" - the biggest flaw in on-screen dialogue however, once again, is a question of time.  If you want reactions and responses to be natural then there should be natural pauses.  Most people don't have conversations that flow effortlessly with immediate responses, even if they are completely engaged in the conversation the only time you actually respond with that immediate flow is during an argument because in those moments you let go of all reason and say the first thing that comes to mind.

All of this beggars the question, what "wisdom" have you learned from fictional characters in TV shows?  Does that wisdom stand up to scrutiny when you stop and break it down?

Untold Future

Time is a strange thing when you stop and think about it.  The fact that you are forever conscious of the present, and that we can fixate on our past and relive our memories, this makes our future become a mystery.  The present isn't always known to us, and sometimes events in our lives come and go before we realise the true extent of their significance.  The future however is something we can never experience until time permits us to do so.  Like a parent who let's a child only have ice cream once they finish their dinner, so too does time only permit us to experience all that life offers only after it lets life throw everything it can at us.

In a past post I wrote about the number 11 and it's significance in regards to our personal connections i.e. that our mobile numbers are 11 digits long in the UK and those 11 digits are all that separate you and the people you haven't met yet from engaging now.  I've been reflecting on this and thinking about all the people in my life who have come and gone.  A friend of mine recently died, the details of which I won't go into.  In losing him however I have been thinking about the impact people have on our lives.  While I know many don't believe in fate or destiny, if I stop to entertain the thought just for a while, with him I can be sure why fate brought me into his life.  I know the impact I had on him and I know he was grateful.  He was one of the few people who I actually believed and felt like they made an effort to keep me in their life and I felt like I had a place there, and I've said before I don't stay where I don't feel wanted.  I want you in my life but that has to be reciprocated, if it's not then I'm not going to make you stay.

When I think of some of the people that came into my life and the profound changes they made, mostly for the better although some were for the worse and one was amongst the worst you can possibly be, despite all this I find myself wondering what my future holds.  Who'll be the next person to leave such a profound impact?  Have I already met them or do I know of them?  Will the impact they leave be one of happiness or sadness?  It's an odd feeling to think that my life as it is today, could be completely different in the future all because of one person who I haven't even met yet.

As I look to the future I find myself focusing more on my own life rather than the rest of the world because the latter has become increasingly depressing.  I'm going through my usual funk right now in respect of social media.  It is proving taxing, not because of the people I talk to but because of the people I don't.  I've spoken before about the 90-9-1 rule of Internet Culture and how it can be applied to social media, when you have 15,000 followers you can expect around 150 to actually engage with you.  To that end I have pursued a social media strategy to beat that rule, following only people I engage with and while that has proved effective in creating a social circle online that does engage, it  does make you focus more on the nature of your engagement.  When it comes right down to it, the way we form connections on social media are often through end points we don't realise at the time are such until someone actually connects with them.  You send out tweets you don't actually expect a reply to and suddenly people engage, on the flip side when you send out tweets you do expect engagement on and nobody does, that can be disheartening.  It does harken back to that song I have quoted so many times, Dark Blue by Jack's Mannequin and the lyric "If you've ever been alone in a crowded room, you'll know" - that's how social media can feel at times, and I know I am not alone.  Several celebrities online have struggled with the same problems and the negative sides of Twitter et al can be overbearing.  Stephen Fry and Seth Rogen to name a few have had quite public battles with this side of the Internet.

When you let go of all pretence and open up your vulnerable side and be honest about it all, maybe the truth is just something we don't like to admit, that we're lonely.  No matter how many people we have in our real lives, when we pursue our online personas through these profiles ultimately we do it because of the promise in the name "social" networking promises to expand our social lives.  Now I know there's considerable debate about whether it actually does and I think that is something best left to another post, instead I'd focus on the connotations for now.  If we engage in social networking then ultimately whether we want to admit it or not our goal is to be as social as possible through it, with our own insecurities and shyness being the barrier to this.  In the end we don't connect on the level we want with people out of fear.  The fear is real and the paranoia is too, I've seen it myself first hand online.  People afraid to reply to others even when they are interested in what they said, because they're either afraid of the response, or afraid of how they will look, or just afraid of being ignored.  The paranoia goes further and the doubts creep in, were they sincere in what they said, are they a real person, do they actually care, do they just want more followers.

I realise that all of this can translate into the real world too, our offline lives and social connections are subject to the same mentalities, however the offline world is rather unique in these problems in that the responses we must give are often time-limited.  When someone replies to a tweet you can consider your response and taking a while to reply isn't unheard of, but when someone is standing right in front of you then you have to be quite quick, you're often denied the chance to second guess what you say.  That denial of time to think, is also a denial of time to overthink which ultimately I think is the death of social media.  Overthinking leads you to consider your responses for too long and make them seem more weighted than they actually are, on the obverse of that it can also lead you to scrutinise replies made to you to a level much greater than they were ever intended.  How many tweets have you written only to delete them without posting them?  I know I have written quite a few and I know even here on my blogs there have been numerous blog posts over the years that I have drafted and deleted for many different reasons but none more so than overthinking.