René Descartes is who that phrase is largely contributed to. Essentially the translation is "I think therefore I am". I could go into near infinite detail about the essence of that phrase, but that is not my point of writing this. What I hope to achieve is to articulate the absolute critical importance of meaningful, directed, conscious thinking that is WAY outside the box. In order to illustrate that importance, I start with the How, and then deal with the Why.
How
www.ted.com seems on the surface to be a bunch of intellectuals spouting off about theoretical outcomes, but really what it is, is a place where people can be encouraged and excited to start thinking outside the box with immediate real world implications. For example I watched this video this morning:
http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html
His claim that people who are alive today could realistically live for 1000 years is kinda "out there". One of those things that you just pass off and ignore as the insane ramblings of an old man who looks like he should be holding an End of the World sign on a street corner. BUT, and it is a VERY big "but", this gentleman is a respected researcher at Cambridge. You do not get to be a respected researcher at an Ivy League school by being insane.
Perhaps there is a small element of truth in his ideas. If there is a small element of truth in what he had to say, then the single most important thing for me, and every other person on the planet, to do is simply to stay alive. Live as healthy as possible so that if this possibility comes to light, you are in a physical state to take advantage of it, and not one of the people who are stuck, quite literally, in a death spiral.
Why
In very real terms, 22 minutes of my life spent watching a very "out there" person ramble on about things that seem too incredulous to be worth while has motivated me to make immediate and lasting changes to the way I live my life. This is almost like a religious epiphany. This is a way to obtain eternal life theoretically speaking. This is way beyond the empty unverifiable promises of very religion out there. This is a tangible, testable, explicit manner in which humanity in general COULD gain essentially eternal life.
I have faith in science, I grew up using the Apple IIe in grade school, I have watched and participated in the internet building around me and into the very fabric of my life to the point where functioning without it for an extended period of time would be like going back to grade 1 for remedial training... totally lacking fulfillment. I have faith in science to produce new, regular, and almost predictable innovations. I have faith that the longer I live, the longer science will be able to keep me alive. Not just alive, because seriously who wants to have time added on at the end of their life, but alive in a healthy state. I am changing my accepted dogma about life. I am breaking the mold in such a way that I am fundamentally different today than I was 24 hours ago. What exactly that means, to be perfectly honest, I don't know; however what I do know is that it is different, it is outside my expectations, outside my thoughts, outside my plans, outside of anything I have considered to be within the realm of possibility.
So was this whole rant about life eternal and the nearly insane ramblings of Aubrey de Grey? No, it was about a point. That listening to talks on www.ted.com is a sure fire way to radically change the way you think about the problems around you and the future of the world. It is an exercise in thinking WAY outside the box, and that is something that is fundamentally important to each and every person in this world, both on a personal level, and on a global level. Simply picking a random topic and listening to innovative radical thinkers talk about where things are moving, or where things should move, will motivate and drive you to live your life to the fullest by simply thinking.
René Descartes was the father of the philosophy of Dualism as it pertains to the mind. This theory of Dualism has been largely and almost uniformly discredited for many obvious reasons that I will not get into here. But perhaps there is a small kernel of truth in there that is fundamentally critical to our very existence - I think therefore I am. Never stop thinking. Never let a good idea die because others scoff at it. Could ANYONE have predicted the success of Farmville or Mafia Wars? Last I hear, Zynga was pulling in $200 million in revenue after only 2 years of operations. That data is one year old. Draw your own conclusions.
I think therefore I am.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Misattribution of Arousal
I am sitting here frantically trying to finish not one, but two assignments that I had yet to start until this morning. I finished one portion of my Social Psychology assignment and felt it was worthy of sharing with the masses. On a side note, it is seriously cruel and unusual punishment to be studying the chapter on Love and Attraction at this point in my life. Seriously, what immortal being did I piss off to deserve THAT chapter being studied NOW. In any case, I will get the point of this blog entry, my Social Psychology assignment. I am basically just doing a cut and paste from my assignment, so forgive me if it isn't in my typical "blog" writing style.
Misattribution of arousal is defined in my text as "the process whereby people make mistaken inferences about what is causing them to feel the way they do".
In plain terms, when we encounter an unusual situation, and we are also evaluating how we feel about someone else, we have a tendancy to attribute that heightened state of arousal caused by the unusual situation to be caused by the new person we are evaluating rather than the situation itself. Whether it is being scared, excited, or even just getting heartburn it can make us think there are "sparks" on a first or second date. There are many studies that support this and if you are interested, I can point you in the right direction. Without further adu, here is the meat of my assignment.
Misattribution of arousal gave me insight into the on-going persistence of Vienna on the just completed season of the Bachelor as well as her eventually being proposed to by Jake, this year’s bachelor. As a result of learning about the misattribution of arousal, now I realize why someone who is as obviously tainted and flawed as Vienna could have been so persistent in the show and even a good indication of why she won.
On Jake’s second one-on-one date of the season, he takes Vienna to go bungee-jumping. He does so on the premise that both of them are afraid of heights and that he wants them to overcome that fear together. After some waterworks (by Jake), and rubbery legs, they jump off the bridge holding onto each other scared out of their minds. After they stopped bouncing around, they shared a pretty amazing upside down kiss, almost Spiderman style. The date progressed as expected, and it was abundantly clear that both of them were falling head over heels for each other.... Seriously Jake, Vienna over Gina? My god men are weird...
After the date, both Jake and Vienna claimed to have this special bond with each other that no other woman could equal. As it turns out they were both correct, despite Vienna’s seemingly purposeful attempts to be as horrible as possible, and Jake knowing full well what she was capable of, Jake proposed to Vienna at the end of the season. As the season progressed, everyone was left wondering why? Why Vienna? Gina, Tenley, Ali, and many more of the contestants were clearly a far better choice than evil, backstabbing, manipulating Vienna.
Learning about the misattribution of arousal, I realized that it was very likely that this was the cause of Jake’s interpretation of love. The date with Vienna was exceptionally arousing for Jake and he likely attributed that arousal to the beautiful woman hanging upside down in his arms. In effect, the results of the season were sealed the instant they jumped from that bridge, and while there were 5 more episodes and 11 other women, no one could match the level of arousal Jake obtained, not by Vienna, but from the knee-quaking heights of that bridge.
Now that I have intently watched every episode of the 2010 season of the Bachelor, and, like women all over North America, was dumbfounded every time Vienna got a rose, I have a pretty good idea that misattribution of arousal was why this choice was made over and over again. I can use this knowledge to help me in the future with my relationships. Newly re-entering the dating scene after almost 7 years of marriage, I need to make sure I steer clear of potentially arousing situations early in the relationship. Mini-golf sure seems like a lame first date, but at least it is almost certain to prevent any significant arousal in the situation that could cloud my thoughts about my feelings. Movies in general should likely be avoided, in addition to new food, or situations.
While it may seem overly paranoid to purposefully avoid exciting first or second dates, it definitely seems better than a long term relationship with a lame duck. On the flip side, if I happen to find “the one” and want to make sure I’ll get a second date maybe I should push them into traffic, just to get their heart going and make them love me even more. On second thought, maybe Mexican food would be a better choice...
P.S. If you are in my class and steal this for your assignment I will hunt you down and... think mean thoughts in your general direction. If you are my prof and wondering why my assignment came up on your Google search, it's actually me who wrote both of these.... seriously :)
Misattribution of arousal is defined in my text as "the process whereby people make mistaken inferences about what is causing them to feel the way they do".
In plain terms, when we encounter an unusual situation, and we are also evaluating how we feel about someone else, we have a tendancy to attribute that heightened state of arousal caused by the unusual situation to be caused by the new person we are evaluating rather than the situation itself. Whether it is being scared, excited, or even just getting heartburn it can make us think there are "sparks" on a first or second date. There are many studies that support this and if you are interested, I can point you in the right direction. Without further adu, here is the meat of my assignment.
Misattribution of arousal gave me insight into the on-going persistence of Vienna on the just completed season of the Bachelor as well as her eventually being proposed to by Jake, this year’s bachelor. As a result of learning about the misattribution of arousal, now I realize why someone who is as obviously tainted and flawed as Vienna could have been so persistent in the show and even a good indication of why she won.
On Jake’s second one-on-one date of the season, he takes Vienna to go bungee-jumping. He does so on the premise that both of them are afraid of heights and that he wants them to overcome that fear together. After some waterworks (by Jake), and rubbery legs, they jump off the bridge holding onto each other scared out of their minds. After they stopped bouncing around, they shared a pretty amazing upside down kiss, almost Spiderman style. The date progressed as expected, and it was abundantly clear that both of them were falling head over heels for each other.... Seriously Jake, Vienna over Gina? My god men are weird...
After the date, both Jake and Vienna claimed to have this special bond with each other that no other woman could equal. As it turns out they were both correct, despite Vienna’s seemingly purposeful attempts to be as horrible as possible, and Jake knowing full well what she was capable of, Jake proposed to Vienna at the end of the season. As the season progressed, everyone was left wondering why? Why Vienna? Gina, Tenley, Ali, and many more of the contestants were clearly a far better choice than evil, backstabbing, manipulating Vienna.
Learning about the misattribution of arousal, I realized that it was very likely that this was the cause of Jake’s interpretation of love. The date with Vienna was exceptionally arousing for Jake and he likely attributed that arousal to the beautiful woman hanging upside down in his arms. In effect, the results of the season were sealed the instant they jumped from that bridge, and while there were 5 more episodes and 11 other women, no one could match the level of arousal Jake obtained, not by Vienna, but from the knee-quaking heights of that bridge.
Now that I have intently watched every episode of the 2010 season of the Bachelor, and, like women all over North America, was dumbfounded every time Vienna got a rose, I have a pretty good idea that misattribution of arousal was why this choice was made over and over again. I can use this knowledge to help me in the future with my relationships. Newly re-entering the dating scene after almost 7 years of marriage, I need to make sure I steer clear of potentially arousing situations early in the relationship. Mini-golf sure seems like a lame first date, but at least it is almost certain to prevent any significant arousal in the situation that could cloud my thoughts about my feelings. Movies in general should likely be avoided, in addition to new food, or situations.
While it may seem overly paranoid to purposefully avoid exciting first or second dates, it definitely seems better than a long term relationship with a lame duck. On the flip side, if I happen to find “the one” and want to make sure I’ll get a second date maybe I should push them into traffic, just to get their heart going and make them love me even more. On second thought, maybe Mexican food would be a better choice...
P.S. If you are in my class and steal this for your assignment I will hunt you down and... think mean thoughts in your general direction. If you are my prof and wondering why my assignment came up on your Google search, it's actually me who wrote both of these.... seriously :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
