A while ago I made a satirical entry about a fictional website called getawayfromme.com
Today I was made aware that similar anti-social networking sites exist, arsebook and farcebook These sites aren't nearly as innovative as getawayfromme.com, which is disappointing. Basically, all they did was paint the old idea a different color, "Instead of your friends, it'll be your enemies!"
Uh huh.
Discovering another one of my predictions about the Internet, culture, and art exists is affirming but not surprising. Humans have only a limited number of reactions, therefore the idea of an anti-social networking site was inevitable.
Where do you suppose all the other inversions of websites are. Where's the upturned Twitter where you can type all the words you want (er... I think that's called a blog), or how about a variant of Google that changes your search into an anagram of what you typed and searches that instead.
"Above all, it's creative thinking that lies at the basis of discoveries. You must dare to think differently, see things from different sides, in order to come across fortuitous new ideas frequently. You should develop even the most stupid ideas and when you do this systematically, there will always come something useful out of it." -Simon van der Meer
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
the truth
"You can't handle the truth." -Aaron Sorkin
The above quote is taken out of context, but nevertheless is an accurate description about how most of us respond to reality; we can't handle it because we find it uncomfortable, and because we find it uncomfortable we will therefore find ways to dodge it. People will deny the truth, twist it about, select the pieces that they like while leaving the rest, et cetera.
Why is this?
I don't think the truth hurts. Or rather, I don't think the truth should have to hurt.
Everytime the truth does hurt it happens under dubious circumstances and I feel as though I may have uncovered what those circumstances are.
A few cultures across the globe have the morally suspect practice of teaching their children that a rotund man will methodically follow and document their every move all day, every day, for the entire year, in order to determine whether or not the child is worthy of receiving his presents.
If you happen to be a particularly paranoid child, learning that you are in fact not being followed year round by this unusual and bearded man and his wild animals comes as something of a relief.
However, most children become distressed once they learn the truth and for various reasons.
But what actually upset them?
I would argue that a child that had the truth explained to them from the very beginning does not face the same disappointment. Aside from questioning the motives of the adults that perpetuate a tradition of needlessly lying to their children, we learn from this example that it wasn't actually the truth that hurt.
Consequently, I believe that people should be exposed to the truth immediately, whatever the case may be.
The above quote is taken out of context, but nevertheless is an accurate description about how most of us respond to reality; we can't handle it because we find it uncomfortable, and because we find it uncomfortable we will therefore find ways to dodge it. People will deny the truth, twist it about, select the pieces that they like while leaving the rest, et cetera.
Why is this?
I don't think the truth hurts. Or rather, I don't think the truth should have to hurt.
Everytime the truth does hurt it happens under dubious circumstances and I feel as though I may have uncovered what those circumstances are.
A few cultures across the globe have the morally suspect practice of teaching their children that a rotund man will methodically follow and document their every move all day, every day, for the entire year, in order to determine whether or not the child is worthy of receiving his presents.
If you happen to be a particularly paranoid child, learning that you are in fact not being followed year round by this unusual and bearded man and his wild animals comes as something of a relief.
However, most children become distressed once they learn the truth and for various reasons.
But what actually upset them?
I would argue that a child that had the truth explained to them from the very beginning does not face the same disappointment. Aside from questioning the motives of the adults that perpetuate a tradition of needlessly lying to their children, we learn from this example that it wasn't actually the truth that hurt.
Consequently, I believe that people should be exposed to the truth immediately, whatever the case may be.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Obstinate Tosspots
I ask a great deal of questions, many of them hypothetical. Most times it's to spark conversation at a party or to play around with an idea. Some of the trouble I run into when asking questions is that I will unintentionally uncover pompous fools.
You know the type, guys who are fools and are covering for it by impressing on people as to how wonderful they are with all this self-flattery and trying to prove they are correct by holding the same opinion at the end of a conversation as they did at the beginning.
Take for example when someone asks, "So, you believe in the Big Bang Theory then?"
Chances are this person is going to have an idea about astrophysics that is less than accurate.
After bracing yourself for absurdity, you can take the time to discuss observational evidence, the expansion of the Universe and if they knew that the static on their television is caused by radiation left over from the Big Bang, but these points are not helpful when dealing with a pompous fool.
The pompous fool will argue back nonsense, "You weren't there, so how could you know?""What happened before the Big Bang?" and "How do you know TV static isn't ghosts?"
Uh huh.
There's a difference between arguing a hypothetical for the sake of creating a fertile ground for iterative problem solving and being an obstinate tosspot only interested in being able to find new ways to interpret your own ideas.
You know the type, guys who are fools and are covering for it by impressing on people as to how wonderful they are with all this self-flattery and trying to prove they are correct by holding the same opinion at the end of a conversation as they did at the beginning.
Take for example when someone asks, "So, you believe in the Big Bang Theory then?"
Chances are this person is going to have an idea about astrophysics that is less than accurate.
After bracing yourself for absurdity, you can take the time to discuss observational evidence, the expansion of the Universe and if they knew that the static on their television is caused by radiation left over from the Big Bang, but these points are not helpful when dealing with a pompous fool.
The pompous fool will argue back nonsense, "You weren't there, so how could you know?""What happened before the Big Bang?" and "How do you know TV static isn't ghosts?"
Uh huh.
There's a difference between arguing a hypothetical for the sake of creating a fertile ground for iterative problem solving and being an obstinate tosspot only interested in being able to find new ways to interpret your own ideas.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Macho Comedian
I have this weird suspicion that Randall Mario Poffo, better known as Macho Man Randy Savage, really wanted to be a stand-up comedian, but felt compelled to follow in the family business, which was wrestling.
Both his father and brother were wrestlers. This probably prompted Macho Man to hide what his family would consider to be a lesser profession.
You could argue that Macho Man actually wanted to be a baseball player, since that's what he was doing before he threw his shoulder out and became a wrestler, but the problem with that argument is that if you look at Macho Man you can tell he's a natural athlete, so being a minor league baseball outfielder was probably something that came naturally to him, and the things that come natural to us are rarely the things that we have a passion for.
My guess is that he tried the baseball thing to avoid falling into the footsteps of his father, but when he had no choice but to become a wrestler he found ways to work in his true passion.
How many of you have a career path that was influenced by your parents?
How many of you work where the tasks you're faced with are simple or the solutions come naturally to you?
Both his father and brother were wrestlers. This probably prompted Macho Man to hide what his family would consider to be a lesser profession.
You could argue that Macho Man actually wanted to be a baseball player, since that's what he was doing before he threw his shoulder out and became a wrestler, but the problem with that argument is that if you look at Macho Man you can tell he's a natural athlete, so being a minor league baseball outfielder was probably something that came naturally to him, and the things that come natural to us are rarely the things that we have a passion for.
My guess is that he tried the baseball thing to avoid falling into the footsteps of his father, but when he had no choice but to become a wrestler he found ways to work in his true passion.
How many of you have a career path that was influenced by your parents?
How many of you work where the tasks you're faced with are simple or the solutions come naturally to you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
