#that i evolved into only ever trying to educate or correct people or state my opinion with those i could really trust

[fishyfishyfishtimes]

What Is and Isn't a Fish: an Essay and Guide by Fishyfishyfishtimes

A simplified list of the animals I discuss can be found here!

Hello folks! I created this post to have a kind of definitive essay/explanation of what is and isn't a "fish", starting with defining the term and going over animals that fit and don't fit the bill. As other fishblr artists, writers and educators must know too well, some people are confused about where this term begins and ends, mistaking other aquatic animals for fish. I have my fair share of arthropods and cnidarians as fish fact requests in my own askbox, heck, some years back a friend of mine asked me if clams were fish. The event that finally made me decide to write this was someone requesting that a fish-only account draw a crustacean, pondering to themselves if they count as fish.

I don't want to hold it against these people. It's impossible to know something when you've never been taught! So that's what I'm here to do, hopefully achieving a pretty correct and universal view ^^' If I make any mistakes please correct me. I'm learning all the same as everyone else is.

Definition of fish

Immediately, we run into a bit of a problem with the definition of fish. See, what the term "fish" means has fluctuated for centuries! For a long time, pretty much any animal that lived in water was a "fish" — I say "pretty much any" instead of "every" animal because for a long time sessile animals like sponges or corals were thought to be plants. This is why we have such remnants in our language like shellFISH, starFISH and jellyFISH, they lived in water so they were called such!

Occasionally these definitions would be changed for cultural convenience too. Many Christian churches take part in Lent, and in the Catholic church red and white meat is forbidden on Fridays and Ash Wednesday. In the Middle Ages, in my own country, Finland, this abstinence of red and white meat could last up to 140 days! To make fasting easier, many animals were labelled fish for convenience so they could be eaten as well. These newfound "fish" included seals, beavers and swans, pretty much just anything that was aquatic or semiaquatic in nature.

Nowadays just going off of looks or behaviour won't do, though. There has been much more of an effort to define fishes coherently based on their anatomy and phylogeny, which is great! Problem is, that's easier said than done: fishes are an extremely diverse group, and uh.. not really a single group, either. I'll show you:

As you can see from this heavily simplified phylogenic tree, fishes are not a singular group like, say, mammals are! The animals that we group under "fish" are actually a part of several distinct lineages of animals, some more closely related to us than each other. Heck, tetrapods, which include amphibians, reptiles*, and mammals, are fish themselves! Phylogenetically speaking. Our ancestors were lobe-finned fish, and, well, you never stop being the previous taxon even when you evolve into something else. If you try to exclude tetrapods, no such unified group as "fish" exists. Still, when discussing fish, we tend to want to avoid talking about every vertebrate ever and instead focus on the very specific aquatic ones we mean when we say "fish". This is why many definitions of the term "fish" still exclude tetrapods, even if we share a common fishy ancestor. "Fish" describes more of a lifeform than it does a clade, much like the term "worm"!

(*birds are reptiles! This could be a whole post in and of itself, but I'm not here to write about that. Someone else has most likely taken up the task!)

Hooray, it's definition time! As stated previously, fishes are an extremely diverse group of thousands of species, and what terms might apply to the Atlantic cod may not apply to the yellowfin tuna or giant mudskipper, let alone a Pacific lamprey! Encyclopedia.com defines a fish as "an ectothermic chordate that lives primarily in water and possesses a cranium*, gills that are useful virtually throughout life, and appendages (if present) in the form of fins". Encyclopedia Britannica notes that "the term fish is applied to a variety of vertebrates of several evolutionary lines", instead highlighting five classes. These five classes are left partly unspecified, but ones that are mentioned are jawless fish, cartilaginous fish and bony fish (which still includes tetrapods, however), and the two classes left can be assumed to be two classes of extinct fish. Wikipedia defines a fish as "an aquatic, craniate**, gill-bearing animal that lacks limbs with digits". Tim M. Berra, an academy professor and ichtyologist, defines fish as "poikilothermic***, aquatic chordate with appendages (when present) developed as fins, whose chief respiratory organs are gills and whose body is usually covered with scales".

(*cranium=upper part of the skull **craniate=an animal with a skull ***poikilothermic=an animal whose internal temperature varies considerably)

From these more or less detailed definitions we can gather many defining features for fish: a cranium-having chordate, primarily aquatic, gill-bearing and uses gills as their main respiratory organ, lacking any limbs with digits, instead having their limbs be in paired and unpaired fins when present. Most fish are also ectothermic, meaning their body temperature is determined by their environment, but some can heat up parts of their body or their entire body in the case of the opah. Most fish also have scales, but not all, just like how most fish are fully aquatic, but some like lungfish or mudskippers can spend considerable time out of the water. Such is the way of these magnificent and diverse animals!

Finally, with all this out of the way, we can get into...

What is a fish!

Here, I will be detailing animals that are fish! Well, at least the broadest strokes; there are more than 30 000 fish species and if I listed them all we'd be here all life. I shall instead go over the major classes and list, in short, some groups that belong in them.

Jawless fish (Superclass Cyclostomi)

Jawless fish are often a topic of debate, especially in matters of their relation to each other and to jawed vertebrates. Evidence seems to point to hagfish and lampreys being closest related to one another and to lampreys being more closely related to jawed vertebrates than to hagfish (which would make hagfish craniates but not vertebrates). In the phylogeny tree above I decided to portray hagfish and lampreys as a monophyletic group, as molecular studies and microRNA analysis seems to point to a monophylegic superclass. Please note that this could go either way, though.

Jawless fish is a group containing two extant fishes, hagfish (class Myxini) and lampreys (order Petromyzontiformes)! Jawless fish are more "primitive" than other groups, for example both lack true vertebrae and scales. Still, they both have craniums and gills and they are aquatic, and so they have earned their place among fish!

Cartilaginous fish (class Chondrichthyes)

Surprisingly, I've found that this group has a lot of confusion surrounding it. I have received many a request confirming if sharks are fish, or asking if I'd cover a shark "even if it's not a fish". So I'll say it now: good news, sharks are indeed fish! So are their cousins, rays, skates and chimaeras, also known as ghost sharks! All of these fish have a primarily cartilaginous skeleton, tooth-like dermal denticles and lack gill covers and a swim bladder. Out of all the sharks, I also want to highlight that the whale shark, despite its confusing name, is a shark and not a whale. So, it is a fish!

Ray-finned fish (class Actinopterygii)

Name any fish, and there's a 96% chance the species name you said belongs to a ray-finned fish. Unless, like, you really like sharks. But this isn't about them.

Ray-finned fish are the biggest group of fish and incredibly diverse! It has your seahorse, your pufferfish, your bass, your tuna, your anglerfish, your clownfish, your salmon, your sturgeon, your lanternfish, your perch, your oarfish, your gar, your sardine, your moray eel... and this is only a tiny, tiny fraction of the groups that belong to this class! Defining features of ray-finned fish are that they tend to have a swim bladder and a bony skeleton (some exceptions though. Sturgeons, for one, have evolved a cartilaginous skeleton but they're still ray-finned fish). The largest group of ray-fins, the teleosts, also have leptoid scales, which are thinner and more flexible and grow with growth rings.

I want to bring special attention to some members of the ray-finned fish which tend to have a lot of confusion surrounding them and their heritage: eels and seahorses. Many people think these two are not fish due to their strange anatomy, like lack of scales or (many) fins and their elongated bodies, and I wouldn't blame them! Seahorses belong to family Syngnathidae, which also includes seadragons and pipefish. Eels, meanwhile, make up the order Anguilliformes. All of these long friends of ours are fish!

Lobe-finned fish (clade Sarcopterygii)

I shall merely focus on the fishy fishy fish individuals of this class, which excludes tetrapods. Lobe-finned fish house the two extant species of coelacanths, and six extant species of lungfish! These fish are bony and their fins are placed at the tips of fleshy, lobelike stalks, resembling the limbs of tetrapods. It is thought that the common ancestor of coelacanths and lungfish and tetrapods had similar structures that then became the four limbs the members of our clade typically have. Coelacanths and lungfish are wonderful fishes and deserve a lot of love and respect, not only because they're our closest cousins but because they're unique and we have so much to learn about them!

So, these are the fishes! There are also extinct groups of fish, namely class Placodermi (armoured fish) and class Acanthodii (spiny "sharks"). I'm moreso an extant fish account however, and so I shall move onto...

What isn't a fish?

Now we get into the real meat of this post. Without further ado, here are some aquatic friends of ours that can be mixed up with fish very often!

Crustaceans (subphylum Crustacea)

Many of our hard-shelled many-legged friends belong here! Crabs, lobsters, crayfish, shrimp, krill, isopods, triops, barnacles, copepods, you name it! Even though many crustaceans are aquatic or semiaquatic and have gills, you'll find that they're invertebrates that lack an internal skeleton (so no cranium, not even vertebrae)! We still love them though!

Mollusks (phylum Mollusca)

Creatures both soft and hard-shelled! Cephalopods like octopuses, squid, nautilus and cuttlefish, bivalves like clams, mussels, oysters or scallops, gastropods like sea slugs and snails and chitons go here! These friends of ours are also aquatic and have gills, some even have the suffix -fish (cephalopods used to be called inkfish, even!), but their lack of an endoskeleton is even more obvious than the crustaceans'. They're invertebrates, and therefore not fish!

Chelicerates (subphylum Chelicerata)

This group has many animals that are very hard to mistake for fish, namely spiders and scorpions, but horseshoe crabs and sea spiders are two groups of extant marine chelicerates! Both groups are aquatic, and horseshoe crabs have gills. However, they're both invertebrates, lacking a cranium or vertebrae. Other aquatic chelicerates exist, but they're usually very small, like water mites.

Cnidarians (phylum Cnidaria)

This phylum has the sessile corals and sea anemones and the usually more mobile jellyfish and siphonophores (includes the infamous Portugese man o' war!). I imagine corals and sea anemones are mistaken for fish less due to their sessile nature, but they're good to bring up nevertheless. None of these animals have a backbone, or, any bones really. They lack gills, they lack fins, they even lack the bilateral shape of fish. Jellyfish, despite the name, are indeed not fish! Some people suggest the name sea jellies be used for them instead, and I think it's much cuter.

Echinoderms (phylum Echinodermata)

Animals like starfish, sea urchins, brittle stars, sand dollars, sea cucumbers and feather stars go here. It seems that this pesky "-fish" -suffix is hard to shake off, as now we have the starfish. Once again, all of these slow-moving bottom-dwelling friends of ours are invertebrates, as they lack vertebrae or a cranium. Interestingly though, they are among our closest invertebrate relatives! So we ought to give them some props for that. I also want to mention that starfish can also be called sea stars, which ought to lessen confusion about their being too.

Comb jellies (phylum Ctenophora)

Comb jellies look a lot like jellyfish, but they belong in their own unique phylum! They have the same deal going on; they are invertebrates, they lack gills, they lack a cranium, they are simply aquatic.

Lancelets (subphylum Cephalocordata) and tunicates (subphylum Tunicata)

A double feature, because I wanted to save space didn't want these guys to be all alone! Lancelets and Tunicates, like sea squirts and salps, are chordates, which you can find in the phylogenic tree I drew all the way in the definitions section. They share many a feature with vertebrates, like a bilateral bodyplan, a notochord at some stage of life and a post-anal tail, but I'm afraid they're still not fish. They lack a cranium and their notochord does not develop into a vertebral column! Sorry friends, you tried. We can still hang out at the chordate convention.

Annelids (phylum Annelida)

The infamous bobbit worm, bone-eating worms, sea mice, giant tube worms, feather duster worms, spoon worms, bristleworms in general, leeches... many, many worms go here! Pretty self-explanatory: they are invertebrates, even when they live in water. They're extremely cool invertebrates too! I suggest taking a look at some of them, there's many interesting species.

Flatworms (phylum Platyhelminthes)

Flatworms are another very diverse group of worms, having many species both terrestrial and aquatic, however mostly I want to put attention into the free-swimming marine flatworms. They may swim beautifully (and fence with grace), but they are nevertheless invertebrates! Flatworms can live a variety of different lifestyles, from predators to parasites.

Amphibians (class Amphibia)

We've made it into vertebrates now! Amphibians include frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. While they have limbs with digits in their adulthood*, they can be easily confused for fish in their larval stages! This is no surprise, as they use gills to breathe underwater and tadpoles lack any limbs at all for a while. Many amphibians later transition into a terrestrial or semiaquatic way of life and lose their gills, not to mention gain their digit-having limbs.

(*excluding caecilians)

...Well, many amphibians do this, but not all. It's important to mention there are also species of aquatic salamanders which can bear great resemblance to fish with their elongated bodies! Amphiumas, which are sometimes mistakenly called "conger eels" (which is an actual species of fish), are aquatic salamanders with small residual limbs and both working gills and lungs. Giant salamanders and mudpuppies/waterdogs have lungs and gills as well, and lead an aquatic lifestyle — olms are close relatives of mudpuppies. Sirens, meanwhile, lack hind limbs and only have small front limbs, along with retaining their gills in adulthood. Among aquatic salamanders I also want to bring up one most often talked about species: the axolotl! They remain in their larval form, have external gills and lead an aquatic lifestyle. It can be hard to tell with aquatic salamanders sometimes, but these friends of ours are amphibians and not fish, even if they've rejected the land life.

Caecilians are a bit less known overall, but they can also cause a lot of confusion due to their long, limbless body. While most caecilians live underground, some are aquatic in nature, and can therefore be mistaken for fish! However, caecilians breathe via the use of their lungs and through the skin and don't have any gills at all.

Reptiles (class Reptilia)

Most commonly mistaken for fish in this group are sea snakes, sea kraits and water snakes, sea turtles, turtles, penguins, and other (semi)aquatic birds. Sea snakes and water snakes bear a very strong resemblance to eels, but they are indeed just snakes adapted to an aquatic or a semiaquatic lifestyle! The same goes for sea turtles, turtles overall, and penguins. They all need to breathe air and they lack fins, even if their flippers, webbed feet and built-in paddles may look like fins! They also have wholly different types of scales (or feathers!!) than what fish have, even if they share the feature. I assume that other aquatic reptiles, like the marine iguana and crocodilians are better read as reptiles thanks to their limbs with digits, but I want to give them a reptile shoutout anyway. They’re aquatic or semiaquatic, but they are air-breathers and fin-lackers all the same!

I also want to mention one specific extinct group of reptiles, ichtyosaurs! These marine reptiles were rather shark- or dolphin-like in appearance, which is actually a really good example of convergent evolution! Like all other reptiles, they also needed to breathe air and they had... erm... well, I'm not sure if I can call the bones in their flippers digits, but, that's what they used to be, so...? They were cool reptiles and among my favourites! There were many other aquatic reptiles too, but I will only mention just the ones now. A paleontology account would be better-suited to list you allll the marine reptiles.

Mammals (class Mammalia)

Our home class! Some of the aquatic friends we have in this class include whales like baleen and beaked whales, dolphins (orcas go here), porpoises, belugas, narwhals and sperm whales, pinnipeds like seals, sea lions, walruses, and sirenians like manatees, (occasionally known as sea cows) and dugongs! We also have some semiaquatic buddies like hippopotamids, otters, beavers and platypuses! Whales and pinnipeds especially often cause a lot of confusion due to their very streamlined, fishy appearance. They are, however, air breathers that feed their young with milk (some dolphin calves are even born with some hair), and their ancestors were land mammals! The same goes for pinnipeds and sirenians too. True seals, fur seals and sea lions still have fur even! Hippos, otters, beavers and platypuses are a bit more obvious as mammals with their fur and.. distinct air-breathing.. but I wanted to mention them anyway. Their adaptations to aquatic life are just one example of how fascinating evolution can be!

And here we are! A hopefully comprehensive list of fishes and non-fishes, beginning with the ever-shifting story of the term "fish", phylogeny, and why some animals are called fish when they really aren't. I hope you have found useful and interesting information in this post, and perhaps learned something new! I bid you a farewell! :D

#fish guide #fish essay #fish #fish facts #fishfact #marine biology #biology #zoology #long post #jawless fish #cartilaginous fish #ray-finned fish #lobe-finned fish

[brightokyolights]

.

#daily shit post that i should not be broadcasting onto the internet but am gonna anyways! :D #anyways i was just kinda thinking about how i hate that i can never seem to find a happy medium #like i went from calling people out on even the littlest thing when i was younger to kind of #being made fun of and laughed off for my opinions #that i evolved into only ever trying to educate or correct people or state my opinion with those i could really trust #which is. not a lot of people #and then i went through shit because my complacency ended up letting shitty people into my life #me thinking i was being good for allowing people to have differing opinions ended in me getting hurt #idk how to explain it any better than that without being specific and i dont wanna say more #but yeah now im in a place where i will call out people on their shit #but its just frustrating because when it kind of ends on an awkward note I AM the one who ends up feeling bad for it #when the way someone else thinks isnt in my control #like i either dont care or care too much and i hate it #i wanna care enough to say something but not care when people inevitably disappoint me as if its my fault or something #i wish people were just like. empathetic towards others without having to directly relate to them i hate it #le text post

[zorya-wellness]

Are Tarot Cards Witchcraft, Magic or Evil? Understanding How Does A Tarot Reading Work

Tarot cards seem to be surrounded by the atmosphere of mysticism and often in relation to the “dark” occult practices.

Some claim that trying to find out the future is bad luck or sinful and will certainly bring only misfortunes.  

The myth that Tarot (or Runes) are the elements of Witchcraft or “dark” Magic is being shaped by the movie industry, video games and books of a particular genre.

My partner recently was playing this video game called Cyberpunk and mentioned that Tarot cards were part of his quest series. A woman that was “reading cards” in the game looked all mysterious and had those dark “witchy” vibes.

As a result of the game popularity, there is even Cyberpunk Tarot deck now available for sale which has only 22 cards and naturally, has nothing to do with Tarot.

The reason I bring this up is because when we look at the scenes where Tarot cards are used, we see evil witches that gather to perform some kind of a Satanic Ritual or curse someone and, of course, they have a Tarot cards deck, a crystal ball and Runes handy.

In this Blog post I will try to look at Tarot cards from all the different angles.

We will look at Tarot from the view of occultism, psychology and religion. Let’s break it all down.

What the Tarot Cards Really Are?

A simple explanation is that Tarot is a tool for divination. But, of course, Tarot is much more than that.

Tarot is a tool for analysis of a situation, person or action.

Tarot is a work with the subconscious layers and shadow sides, uncovering deepest desires, fears and intentions.

It doesn’t matter what you believe in, the essence of Tarot is taking the energy from a person you are reading cards for to create the best future for them.

Tarot reader is merely a guide. You can call Tarot a weak energy vampire that takes a bit of your energy to transform it into information and give you an answer.

The correct work with Tarot is based on the reader’s ability to help you choose the path that is right and best for you given all current circumstances.

Is Tarot A Form of Black Magic or Witchcraft?

What Is the Difference Between A Ritual Work Divination?

Tarot reading works by the means of receiving information from the Source through the cards and uncoding this information to a client.

It has absolutely nothing to do with ceremonial Magic or any kind of Ritual work.

A ritual is done to shape the reality the way you want to see it. You are influencing an event or a person. And in this post, we only cover the nature of the Ritual working briefly, just so that you understand what is behind the words “Ritual” and “Witchcraft.”

Tarot does not intervene or influence a person, forcing them to do something they may not want to do. It completely allows for the Free Will to be the only natural way of human experiences.

Tarot gives you the information you otherwise may miss or not see, sometimes quite willingly, to make the right choice. This is why sometimes clients say things like: “Well, this is what I expected” or “I have known this all along.” This is because the answers are within us and a Tarot Reader is only guiding you to see them.

Can Tarot Be Used for Ritual or Magical Work?

I hope you can see that this is a completely different question.

Tarot can and is sometimes used as the Ritual tool. It can be a part of spell casing, for good and for bad. When Tarot is used for evil intentions, it is not because Tarot itself is evil but because people misuse it for their nasty intentions.

And the problem is in people, not the cards.

If Tarot Is Not Magic, Where Do Tarot Readers Get the Information From?

There is different information circulating around with regards to “Where Tarot Readers get their answers from?”

Some believe that the source is Akashic Records which is considered to be a universal information “storage”, so to speak, that has a record of all the thoughts, emotions, words and also events.

But those who claim the existence of such records seem to deny the existence of divination. For example, Vadim Zeland, the creator of Transurfing of Reality, states that divination does not exist because there is way too many “paths” and “variations” of future events to be able to predict them.

However, here comes my long-standing point about the different between divination and fortune telling and I briefly touched on this in my Blog Post “What Questions Tarot Can and Cannot Answer”. And this is where people like Vadim Zeland, who by the way created his own “Tarot” despite claiming its limited use, are wrong.

RELATED POSTS: What TAROT CARDS CAN and CANNOT TELL. Questions to ask during a Tarot reading

Tarot does not tell you what you are going to have for lunch tomorrow or give you a straight yes/no answer.

Tarot reviews those possible paths and variations of events and helps you make the RIGHT CHOICE.

Tarot helps you to go to your subconscious mind and from there pull the information about yourself to help you understand what internal challenges are preventing you from growing and becoming, from letting go of the past and from working on your future.

"The Good” In Tarot Cards. Tarot as A Tool for Psychoanalysis.

If you think about it, people do many different things on a daily basis to learn more about themselves. They go to see a psychologist to resolve their personal matters and figure out the roots of their anxiety, fears and phobias.

People try to understand the meaning of their dreams and see the signs of communication from Spirit Guides and Angels.

Modern psychologists use cards, not only Tarot, during their sessions as the tool for a deep analysis and consulting.

Tarot can help a person uncover and understand some moments they were not able to connect with before mentally. These include hidden thoughts, desires and intentions.

Unlike Tarot readers, psychologists use cards for the most part to work on the ISSUES OF THE PAST, deeply analyzing it before making any prognosis or goals for the future.

How do psychologists view Tarot?

In this case, psychologists don’t even think about the “mysterious” aspects of Tarot or their connection to esotericism, paganism or occult, it is simply a tool for them to do their job better.

First and foremost, Tarot is used for symbolisms, associations and imagery.

This system helps a psychologist to connect the dots and figure out what is happening at the subconscious level of their patient. Tarot become a diagnostic method that at some situations becomes quite sufficient for a basic diagnostic.

Finally, Let’s Think TOGETHER. Are Tarot Cards A Sin?

Naturally, the answer to this question depends on your religion and what it says in the scriptures with regards to divination of any kind. But I trust that by the time you are reading this, you can make the right judgement yourself.

For the most part, Sin is a concept of JCI religions. And here we also have two categories of people to address.

If you strictly follow ALL the rules of your religion and live by them, then you shouldn’t seek an answer to this question in the Blog post of a Tarot reader, a witch or anyone who deals with magical and ritual workings.

You should address this question an official representative of your religion who is qualified to answer.

If you follow a religion, using it as a moral compass or it is a cultural part of your life, then the word “Sin” takes on a totally different meaning.

In this case, you need to assess what your religion means for you and what other rules, commandments or dogmas you have broken throughout your life. And if during those times you have at all considered the sinful nature of these acts.

For example, when you saw men cheating on their wives, a person drinking alcohol, lying or being jealous of your new IPhone, did you, even in your head, call them sinners?

Most people don’t think that printing a spiritual development book on their work printer is a sin, and yet it breaks the rules of the 6th Commandment.

Therefore, a factual sin is not a part of a religious-ethical category that is for the most part not used as a guide for our day-to-day actions.

It is rather a culturally created concepts of morals, about right or wrong, that shape the tendencies, and also change and evolve together with humanity.

Another example I want to mention is something you probably would not have even ever considered. And this is my beloved practice of Yoga.

Many of those who practice Yoga, being under the influence of the practices and travels, said they turned to Buddhism or Hinduism (both have Yoga as a part of their religion) for their spiritual and personal growth. And this is not normally being labelled as something sinful, even though looking at it factually, it is a change of Religion.

But quite conveniently, normally such person is described as a healthy and spiritual human being that enjoys travelling, sings Mantra, dresses up exotically, even doesn’t eat meat! What an example to all. A modern, soulful, educated and highly spiritual being. He is not a sinner, well, a hipster at the most.

I believe this will also answer the question “Is Tarot Evil?” because evil and sin go hand in hand with each other.

What is “good” and what is “bad” came from religious and philosophical teachings that are also subject to change based on the shifts, changes and revisions we are going through every day.

Should I not be afraid of Tarot then?

In my opinion, when going for a Tarot reading, you should be afraid not of committing a sin, but of your intentions and actions.

If you are asking a question about your own life, without getting a third party involved, (such as “What is happening in my best friend’s relationship with her boyfriend?) if your questions and life morals don’t contradict each other, then there is no need to be afraid of the consequences of the reading because there are none.

Let it be a reason for you to think what your life position is. What morals and principals do you follow?

If you take time to consider everything said above in this Blog post, you will understand that working on your future using Tarot is neither a sin or an evil. A Tarot reading will not bring you bad luck or misfortunes because it’s not on its own a magical tool.

Tarot is your guide to the better choices, better life and happier future. Use it wisely, use it to help others and don’t forget to always thank the Source.

#tarot basics #tarot blog #tarot witch #tarot cards #tarot lesson #tarot tips #tarot

[pahal-dehradun]

MUST READ FOR DESIGN ASPIRANTS

What is Design

Design is the practice of intentional creation to enhance the world. It is a field of doing and making, creating great products and services that fit human needs, that delight and inform. Design is exciting because it calls upon the arts and humanities, the social, physical, and biological sciences, engineering and business.

Design thinking comprises strategies for finding and solving problems by bringing an understanding of people and society to technology design, focusing upon finding the correct problem before rushing to a solution. We believe that design thinking skills will be a key success factor for a new generation of creative leaders in technology, business, and education.

Design's purview has widened from its historical focus on artifacts to its new, expanded role in developing services and experiences, and improving sustainability, health, and education. In earlier years, designers were trained in form, function, materials, and aesthetics. Today, culture and emotion are central, plus knowledge of societal issues, techniques for subtle persuasion, and the intricacies of complex, interdependent systems. Design education must change.

Design is a field of doers and makers. In the practical world, successful products and services require generalists who can cut horizontally across many of the deep, vertical specialties. Generalists cannot succeed without close collaboration with specialists, while the knowledge of a specialty is too limited to create an effective service or product for people without the aid of design generalists.

Is Design for Me ??

Weird is good :

Students are attracted to design in the first place because they see the world in a different way, slightly askew. They are weird. Most of them have heard this many times in their lives—and it was not intended as a compliment. But Weird is good; it’s an anomaly and it’s unique. If you look at any “successful” person, they are probably being paid to play out the goofiness or athleticism or nerdiness or curiosity they already possessed as a child. Unfortunately for most people, somewhere along the road their weirdness was taught out of them or, worse, shamed out of them. Crushed by the need to “fit in,” they left their quirks and special powers behind. But it is our flaws that make us interesting. We need to not only hang on to them, but hone them. I don’t try to make my students “Designers.” Weird is good, but only if we put it in your work.

Design is not math. This is what makes the work hard. There are no right answers and very few wrong answers. Design is more as an innate skill set that we are born with—a small ember waiting to be coaxed into a larger flame. If you know  how to use your  brains, to make your senses of association and imagery sharp and flexible and urge them to seek their own way and express their individuality and push yourself to think for self, form an opinion—and know that your opinions matter. Essentially, you have to “learn” to be yourself  and put it in your work.

DESIGN EDUCATION – A PARADAIGM SHIFT

“If we teach today as we taught yesterday, we rob our children of tomorrow.”

In today’s dynamic world, it is imperative to monitor and map trends that have far-reaching impact on the larger society and the resulting implications on preparing design students. Definitely the future requires a different skill set. Employers are more and more looking towards hiring quick learners who can easily swing from one role to another and in the process be more productive for an organization; a definite shift from specialized subject skills that are the primary outcome of a design education, towards life skills.

With the ever changing job market and the industry, flexible ‘new age’ courses are gaining favour among learners as compared to traditional courses and skills. Learners of today are increasingly opting for non-mainstream new age alternate career options.

The role of design and of designers is increasingly shifting towards innova- tion, creative problem-solving, co-creation and cross-disciplinary collaboration. Designers are increasingly invited to the table to tackle complex business, social, and environmental problems that require much more than a visual solution. Design in these contexts is more complex than styling or making; it is an iterative process of redefinition that often produces products, services and experiences that continue to evolve over time.

Design is no longer an elite and exclusive language of luxury products, brands, and services. In this capacity, a designer is no longer viewed as privileged genius, but rather as a strategic partner in a range of contexts from startups to large corporations and governments.

Fortune 500 companies that are not design studios or digital products are creating new positions at the executive level that place emphasis on design. It is becoming common to see designers at the top with titles like Chief Design Officer, Chief Creative Officer or VP of Design at companies like Hyundai-Kia, PepsiCo, Capital One, Johnson & Johnson, and 3M

future needs are also an urgent need . This reiterates that there is a need to reconstruct the education model towards inter-disciplinary approach and revolutionize curriculum by merging and making them more progressive, responsive, real-time, and learner driven (what will industry offer and student readiness for it). A shift from:

·       Disciplinary to inter-disciplinary/ multi-disciplinary;

·       Specialized to holistic

·       Fixed path learning to flexi path approach

·       Product based to systems based

Employability trends: expectation from a young graduate

We are driven by economy of sales and economies of time, which are changing fast and so are the related needs and expectations. ‘Those whom the left-brain corporate masters tolerated as an interesting distraction but not really relevant to the main game, are now not only becoming the main game, they’re rewriting its rules. Designers who were once the barbarians at the gates now have the keys to the kingdom

In a qualitative study, over the last one-year, many design professionals and educators in India were spoken with through formal/ informal interactions in the form of focus group meetings and one on one discussion. These professionals were experts from various domains including product design, accessory design, fashion, visual and interactive communication, advertising, media and journalism, sports management, hotel management. Some important insights were brought forth.

When hiring a fresh graduate, design professionals look for relevant skills and capabilities over degrees. During interaction with industry experts, most of them stated that there is not much distinction in recruiting masters and bachelor level graduates. The preferred candidate should be well aware and be able to incorporate global as well as local factors while demonstrating responsibility towards ethical practices in design delivery.

With continuously changing scenario and the organization structure also altering from clear verticals to network based structure, there is a need for GENERALISTS rather than Specialists, who adapt from one role to another. There is a need for people who will solve BUSINESS PROBLEMS and not just design problems. Graduates should showcase the ability to develop new innovative ideas or improvement to products and processes. They should be able to develop and apply strategic thinking, critical analysis leading to innovative user centred responses.

Looking at the future trends, there is an increased demand for those who can effectively collaborate/connect and work in trans-disciplinary teams, while understanding the importance of individual role and responsiveness in an engaging and collaborative learning environment. There should be increased emphasis on research to generate wise designers who act more as consultants than as pure designers (as they are traditionally described)

Industry prefers to hire graduates with enthusiastic ‘ATTITUDE’ and appropriate ‘SKILLS.’ Experts further elaborate attitude as:

·       Risk taker, challenge the norms, entrepreneurial mindset, adaptability, embracing (open to change and ideas), bring passion to work, patience, multi-tasker, and partnership with technology.

·       Graduate should be passionate about the area of specialization, should show ownership of the creative idea and be excited by it. He/she should have the thinking acumen, should be good with people, should be creative, insightful and a planner. Passionate people with fresh ideas. People who love their work – be proud – be able to say ‘wow’

·       Person not desirous of being in their box

·       Awareness of the ecosystem - Curious about what’s happening in ‘design’. Understand what’s happening in the world

·       Exposure, Willingness & Adaptability: Ability to adapt and quickly pick up nuances of change

·       Wanting to integrate mediums

#design #design career #designaspirants #opportunities #pahaldehradun

[liishang]

some people don’t have the privilege of an official diagnosis, and in many cases an official diagnosis is actually detrimental, causing the government to restrict their life into unlivable conditions. Unofficial diagnosis doesn’t mean the person knows nothing either. If the symptoms align and the person has done their research, it’s like that person can make a generally correct estimate as to their neurodiversity. I’m not trying to attack you or anything when I say this, nor imply that you don’t have a point when it comes to the cons of self diagnoses, merely pointing out that suggesting self diagnosis are always wrong is a statement that will justifiably receive backlash. Many people will never be able to get a diagnosis either because of inaccessibility, restrictive environments and a lack of awareness and education.

ooc. oh absolutely ! not only that but diagnosis’s can take a very long time, and official diagnosis’s can also be just as wrong and harmful. I’ve been misdiagnosed a lot by professionals, as well as my sister and other family members. I’ve seen both sides of the system. I’ve watched as my uncle was subjected to electro-shock therapy for his illness despite his constant complaints of how he felt like it was hurting him more than it was helping him. I watched them do the same thing with 2 of my aunts. 

Believe me, my position on the subject of self-diagnosing is not in ignorance to the harms of official diagnosis or what governments can do to people with specific illnesses. I watched them slowly kill my uncles brain for 2 years. He wasn’t the same person when he died.

more under the cut because it’s long and I feel you deserve a thorough response to this because you make incredibly valid points that I whole heartedly agree with ♥️

I want to highlight that I did not state that self diagnosis are always wrong. I said they are often wrong. My opinions are the same for first time diagnosis with professionals. Often the first diagnosis is incorrect because the professional does not have an in-depth or acute understanding of you or the illness upon first few meetings. Mine were wrong. Two of them, actually, and my diagnosis is ever evolving even with the help of a professional. They get it wrong all the time; so do average people without training on the subject. 

Conversations around mental illness are NEVER black and white simply given the nature of mental health, mental illness, society, and stigma in and of itself. 

But I think that it’s important that we have these conversations about the gaps and the issues of self-diagnosing. I’ve seen people turn experimental drug usage or treatments to treat an illness they thought was one thing, but was actually something else and they got worse. My best friend did this and still does this. The same thing happens with a professional as well –– getting the drug combination right is tough. It’s also possible that people who self-diagnose will not accept new evidence that their illness is not what they’ve self-diagnosed because they’ve convinced themselves it’s a specific illness. And yes, professionals can also do this as well. I’ve had to switch psychologists because they did not think my PTSD was actually PTSD but I felt as though they didn’t listen when I expressed concerns that it was more than just a fear of men.

However; you are more likely to successfully receive a good and healthy treatment with a professional than you will be by yourself. The ability to be introspective is a hard thing to do. And talking with someone else about your illness may reveal things you didn’t know were symptoms of a certain illness. This is why I advocate for people to attempt, where possible, to seek professional treatment. I understand it’s not always safe, effective, or helpful to do so –– but despite seeing the goods and bads of both options, I feel it’s responsible to advocate for professional help where ever possible. 

In short, people need to be careful no matter the route they take to diagnosis and treatment. Take the time to do your own research with or without a professional at your side. Take the time to evaluate your thoughts, feelings, gut instincts when it comes to your mental illness treatment. Talk to various professionals and various friends who have differing opinions of mental illness and it’s treatment. At the end of the day, people need to be an advocate for themselves and when it comes to health (mental or physical) people are always going to do things that people will disagree with. I know this all too well.

I hope this has cleared a few things up for you ! you’re welcome to send another anon or IM me personally about anything I’ve said here. I’m always open to discussion about issues on this topic. 

#Anonymous #ooc. #mental illness mention tw #therapy mention tw #death mention tw

[dianamjackson]

How To Achieve World Peace (2020)

I have figured out a few things that explain common phenomena in society but are routinely overlooked.

I can explain why conservatives and liberals have always existed, and why conservatives are often in power. I can explain ‘black sheep’ of families and why almost everyone has a ‘weird aunty’ or a ‘weird uncle.’ I can explain why artists are so often depressed, so creative and so misunderstood. I can explain conformity and non-conformity. I can explain Michael Jackson’s attraction to shiny things, and everything else about him.

The thing to remember is that we are animals like all the others, and that our evolutionary history shaped us — not culture. People who think culture is stronger hold that individuals choose their preferences in life, which is false. People choose the things they do because they’re programmed that way by evolution, and it is not one size fits all.

There are two main sorts of humans on the earth: family types (making up at least 80% of the population) and leaders (making up the rest).

Family types evolved to survive, raise families and do exactly what their parents did. For this reason they are conservative, incurious (because any new thing is a potential threat to existing conditions), blinkered and have a practical and deductive intelligence rather than a synthetic and inductive one. Leaders are explorers — their education never ends. Their permanent curiosity ensures they are forever exploring, making new connections and forming new hypotheses.

Without this neat ~80/20 balance, human society would not progress. Without the leaders, no new inventions would be created and we’d all still be living in caves. Without family types, nothing could be instantiated and there would be anarchy. Nature or God or whatever is responsible for the order we see in the universe worked this ideal ratio out so that beings could develop and differentiate and proliferate — basically, to make manifest the creativity of the universe.

I remember a few years ago reading Satoshi Kanazawa’s book The Intelligence Paradox, wherein he describes the traits of people with above-average intelligence: they are usually night owls, are less likely to marry and have kids, enjoy experimenting with drugs, are highly curious and creative. I think he was fired from Psychology Today for stating his findings. Ah, political correctness getting in the way of science, again.

Growing up I noticed a pattern in every family I encountered: the parents were normal enough (after all, they were parents), one child was robust and similar to the parents, and the other was a highly sensitive, interesting and curious type. If there were more than two children, there were more robust types than sensitive types.

Growing up I had a hell of a time in my family. I loved staying up late reading, writing and playing music. I loved the night so much that I covered my windows during the day, which is something Jimi Hendrix also did. My parents were dismayed and couldn’t understand why I was so different to them. I also liked going out for days, exploring and experimenting. I was, of course, extremely artistic from the beginning. I understood concepts at school very quickly, and got in trouble for breaking the rules and prioritising my own ideals over that of my superiors.

All these behaviours label children, and the adults they become, ‘troublemakers’ and rebels. “Why can’t they just behave?” parents and teachers lament. Well, because evolution programmed them that way. But back then I would’ve utilised a far shorter answer.

Leader types, being highly sensitive, experience the discord of growing up in families of followers very intensely and in far higher resolution. If a father is strict and domineering, the sensitive child will feel he is ruled by a tyrant. Off-handed criticisms will be stab wounds that are nursed for years and years. Their deep processing will have them mulling and stewing over the slightest things that followers forget in the very next moment.

Thousands of years ago, human tribes had to hunt animals, gather foods, build shelters, live in the shelters and raise families. Distinct human types evolved to carry out these different tasks.

Leaders are the hunting and exploring type. They were the ones who went out, probably at night, to look for food. To be good at this, they had to be highly sensitive so they could hear every noise, smell every smell, feel the vaguest touch on their skin and see the slightest movement. They had to be brave and bold to explore scary places. They had to be graceful and silent as cats to sneak up on prey, but aggressive enough to actually kill. They had to have loud, developed voices in order to communicate with other members of the hunting party. They had to be confident of their own opinion and communicate it effectively to others in order to lead.

They also had to be able to imitate other animals they encountered, to seem less threatening. They also had to be ingratiating in order to win the trust of people they only just met — and they would have met many people on their travels. They had to be highly adaptable to quickly get used to ever-changing environments. They had to be physically robust and agile to withstand the rigours of their itinerant hunting life. They developed the classic ‘rolling stone’ personality — Jimi couldn’t stand being in the same place for three months, let alone years. They also needed great and detailed memories, to remember where they’d been.

With their keen vision they would spot anomalous objects in the environment — shiny things might indicate water, and colourful things (especially red and yellow) would indicate food. Look at the colours and shiny things Michael wears and is attracted to. Watching him shopping is literally watching a leader type hunting in the forest thousands of years ago.

Their sensitivity is responsible for their artistry. As I read somewhere (possibly in Elaine Aron’s book The Highly Sensitive Person), not all highly sensitive people are geniuses, but all geniuses are highly sensitive. Charles Darwin lined his room with cork to keep the noise out. Jimi, as mentioned, covered his windows with black fabric. All this is to minimise stimulation. Because highly sensitive people take in so much more information from their environment, and process it so much more deeply, they need to restrict it only to what is most important to them.

Being a night owl, as Kanazawa found in his research, was related to higher intelligence. Much hunting probably occurred at night, when the animals were about, or it was easier to travel without being seen. The peace and stillness of the night also minimises stimulation for highly sensitive leader types. Intelligence itself is required to make connections between disparate phenomena, entertain several possible explanations, and synthesise information to decide on a verdict and course of action. The activity of hunting would have honed the intelligence of leader types. Any kind of physical bodily movement and coordination increases brain power — dancing for example. Moving the body in space. I relate this to moving ideas around in one’s head. This is how I did philosophy at university: I literally saw concepts as interacting forms in my mind. Einstein also thought in visual-spatial terms.

Something fascinating about stimulation is that leader types seem to become rapidly overwhelmed by experiences that family types consider quite routine and harmless, but at the same time, they crave intense stimulation. Paradoxical personalities, innit? Clearly, not all stimulation is created equal: a normal day in an office as an employee would be intense and overwhelming for a leader, but then they go out at night, attracted by the bright lights and shiny things of the city, loud music and the stage, and crowds.

A hypothesis of mine is that leader types are born with ‘happy’ neurotransmitter deficits. The strong correlation of substance use and abuse with artists, I think, is related to this deficit. In general, almost everything that makes us feel good — no matter what type of animal you are — does so because it fulfils some evolutionary prerogative. Leader types evolved to be sad — is what I’m saying. They are naturally sad. Therefore, they are forced to do things of a specific kind to alleviate that sadness. Michael is really good at being sad, but he’s also really good at alleviating that sadness. Drugs, alcohol, excitement, driving fast, athletics, dancing, bright colours, shiny things, movement, strong sunlight, making people feel and do things, eating certain foods, exploring, romance, helping and educating people, learning, discovering, conquering, mystery — all of these things alleviate the natural depression of the leader type. Fasting, too. What could more blatantly inspire a person to go out and hunt, besides hunger? Both Michael and myself had anorexia, but his was more extreme perhaps because he was more sensitive or his upbringing was more damaging, and he was constantly in the spotlight. But apart from the self-soothing reason, and the aesthetic reason (wanting a “dancer’s body”), I think we literally like to be hungry, as it were. I do believe he said, in his delightful hyperbole: “I hate food.” It keeps us searching. Anything that inspires a leader type to go out and be a leader will feel good, because that’s what nature wants us to do.

Mystery is integral for the leader type. It’s one of the main motivators of action and a guarantee of happiness and flourishing. I finally understand the propensity for this type to entertain idealistic romances and muses. Try making a person give up something that guarantees them happiness! As C. S. Lewis said so well “Desiring desire is the fullest possession we can know.” I finally understand this. What I want is to be in a state of desire, because it’s animating, life-giving, exciting. Why else would I love improvising so much? I love the mystery of not knowing what will come out of my guitar, what I will sing, or what dance moves I will come up with. I love mystery so much that all my essays are pretty much streams of consciousness.

Everything is on a spectrum, including family type/leader proclivity, and gender too. Effeminate men prefer masculine women; masculine men prefer feminine women. It’s all about balancing genetics to bring about the best complementarity. Who you’re attracted to is not a choice. Those with feminine hips are attracted to masculine hips; those with deep-set eyes are attracted to protuberant eyes; square-jaws are attracted to heart-shaped jaws; pinched-in cheeks are attracted to smoother, convex cheekbones. You can set your watch by this stuff.

Leader types also tend to be gender-indeterminate, or “in the middle” with respect to the male-female spectrum. This gives them the best of both worlds — e.g. deep empathy and nurture from the female side, and single-minded determination and action from the male. I do not think this is a degeneracy. Rather, in my view it is actually a requirement for leader types. To be too male or too female would be a hindrance for a leader.

In politics, there will always be conservatives and liberals, and more conservatives than liberals, because these represent the two primary types of humans, and their ratio, on earth.

The way to achieve world peace is to acknowledge the two broad types. Both are necessary for the survival and continuation of the human species. Conflict can seed change, but oftentimes we could do with a little less conflict and a little more understanding. Understanding of the millennia-old biology of our species that is — not politically correct ‘tolerance’. We need to understand things instead of merely tolerating them.

But the sobering reality is that family types can never fully understand leaders, and leaders can never fully understand family types. Each has a very different evolutionary prerogative that is very deeply ingrained. For one to understand the other, the one needs to literally inhabit the physical body of the other — which is currently impossible. Type ‘goes all the way down’ — the nervous system is different, the brain is different, the emotions are different, the values are different — everything is different.

This is why ‘black sheep’ — a derogatory term that betrays a lack of understanding on the part of the family types (but it is after all in their nature to demonise difference because it is threatening) — get along better with friends, aunties and uncles and other leaders unrelated to them instead of their own families. And it’s interesting that they’re called ‘black’: I have noticed highly sensitive leader types do often wear black, and I think this is to minimise stimulation. It’s one less item for them to process.

This is why certain kids act out at school, and why every person I admire from Debussy to Miles Davis to Isadora Duncan to Walt Disney quit the schools they were at. This is why Michael left the Jacksons and struck out on his own. This is why Zappa stayed up all night drinking coffee making the music he wanted to hear regardless of what other people thought about it.

This is also why the majority of people — the followers — shun, disbelieve and are afraid of leader types. The reason J. K. Rowling had to pitch her book to 200 publishers was because she saw the value of her work, but the publishers — who aren’t leaders — could not. The more innovative a thing, the less followers can comprehend its value. Followers are biologically programmed to play it safe and not take risks. This is infuriating for leaders, but the solution is not anger, but rather perseverance. Think of J. K. being turned away from the 199th publisher. Perseverance. Bang on long enough about something and family types will eventually stop feeling threatened because now you’re part of the furniture.

Another paradoxical thing about family types feeling threatened by leaders is that leaders are, in almost every instance, seeking to make the world a better place with their works. Think of Tesla. Leaders need family types — the two are in symbiosis — so it is definitely not in a leader’s interests to harm their followers. They are shepherds, not wolves. Empathy for their pack is high, because a leader who doesn’t care for their flock will not be followed for long. The extremely high degree of similarity between myself and Michael can be, to a great extent, explained by the fact that we are of the same human type (and probably share some genetics too). He has all the characteristic leader type qualities: he’s highly sensitive, an artist and a musician, he’s obsessed with the way people and animals move and is very curious. He loves bright colours and shiny things, which are food. I believe he said he loved Disney films so much “I could just eat (them)!” (I told a friend once that his photographs made me hungry; he looked at me like I was insane.) And of course the beautiful — Michael loves beauty — he goes weak in its presence. If there’s something he doesn’t understand, he’s fascinated by it and will obsess over it. He has a highly developed somatic-neuronal ability (that’s my term; I don’t know the correct neurological term), which is why his movements are so fluid and why he can imitate others so easily. He’s both male and female, has a great strong voice, resists authority, is ingratiating and immediately loveable, likes climbing trees and running around, staunchly believes in his own vision and he made looking after his ‘tribe’ the central mission of his life. He owned thousands of books and was constantly reading, usually by himself. All Michael’s searching made him very knowledgeable, of course. He liked to associate with fellow talented and driven people, from whom he gathered even more leadership advice. Michael’s not messing around — the advice he gives you is the advice he’s given himself. He experiments on himself. He’s a leader — a real leader — so he wants to help. One day I was dancing at home and came up with a certain move. Two weeks later, I happened to be watching a video of Mike’s and saw him do the exact same move. I couldn’t believe it. At the time I came up with it, I had no memory of having seen him do any such move. I was dancing in the mirror, and happened to trace the outline of my thigh with a finger — it was totally spontaneous and improvised. I liked that I was drawing and dancing at the same time — I do draw and dance, so it was exciting for me to do them simultaneously. In his video he was dancing to Dangerous, and he did that move. I thought “So now he’s copying me?!” This kind of thing happens often, and not just in dancing. For example, I’ll have some opinion about something, then later hear that he has the same opinion about that thing. Or I’ll happen to think of something I did when I was a lot younger, and it turns out he did the exact same thing. Then there’s the Star Wars thing, the one glove thing, the cape thing, the cutting the front of our shirts thing, the liking the same colours thing, the gum and TicTac thing, the similar music taste and compositional style thing, the sitting down with one leg or arm stretched out thing, the liking the exact same part of the flight attendant demonstration thing... We even have the same taste in women. Type, type, type. Once you know someone’s type, you can pretty much get out your checklist and starting ticking things off. Although, I don’t at this point know where type ends and genetics begin, because a lot of these similarities must owe to genetics, not type. I’ll work on this.

Being childlike is, I am positing, an integral part of the leader-hunter-HSP type. Mike and I both retained our childlike attitude to the world. For me, I distinctly remember the day I made the decision to never grow up. I was 14, on the basketball courts in junior high school near the end of the day. I thought “It’s just so much fun being a kid, I’m not going to grow up. Why should I?” It was also around that time that I decided what my life’s goal would be, having just read Freud: to be myself. I didn’t want to be a fireman or a lawyer or a teacher — I wanted to be myself, my truest self. Even back then, I knew this was a worthy goal, and I knew that it would be difficult.

Mike famously identified with Peter Pan, and passionately championed a childlike view of the world. He often claimed this was because he was denied a childhood, but I think there’s more at work here than that fact alone. Even if he had had a more normal childhood, he’d still probably have remained pretty childlike, because that’s an integral characteristic of the leader type. Being childlike — being open, innocent, relentlessly curious, able to withhold judgement, and trusting — is essential to being a leader. If leaders weren’t open to new information (i.e. adaptable), etc — they wouldn’t be effective leaders. If a leader didn’t trust his advisors, he couldn’t get anything done. Suspicion is poison.

It’s known that Mike was trusting. He advised his friend Brett Ratner that one of the big lessons he learned was “not to trust everybody in the industry; there are a lot of sharks.” But a person who is naturally trusting has a hard time trying to become the opposite, let me tell you. To be trusting is beautiful; when a trusting person is betrayed, it is not they who have erred.

It has fascinated me over my lifetime to observe the way sexual desire can be completely decoupled from child-rearing. Leader types definitely have sexual desire: just think of Jimi. Mike too, Madonna, Greta Garbo, Picasso. With men it’s fairly straight-forward, but I always wondered how female leaders could get away with it, seeing as they’d be having so many children but no desire to look after them — clearly a less-than-ideal situation. Maintaining a pregnancy and then a baby would definitely slow them down and make them vulnerable to attack. Nature may have solved this problem by making leader types infertile. After all, their genes will be passed on via their siblings’ children, so there’s no need for them to do it personally. It prevents overpopulation. And besides, their legacy is cultural innovation, not physical progeny. Some say that Mike was infertile. It could well be that this is by nature’s design.

Barbara Sher calls leader types ‘scanners’. Scanners are people who flit from one thing to the next, seemingly at random, are reading 50 books at any one time, and change careers frequently — you get the idea. But my contention is that leader types do this in order to get the best ‘lay of the land’. If they didn’t, if they were a specialist in some tiny nook of expertise, what would they know about the world? Nothing! All they’d know is their little area (which there’s nothing wrong with by the way, it’s just not the scanner approach). Scanners scan. They try to get the best view of everything — figuratively and literally.

I know this type is rare, but I don’t know how rare. I’ve certainly never encountered anyone as similar to me before, but then I don’t know everyone. Surely a person with such obvious and anomalous qualities would rise to prominence, almost by default. They’re generally in art, but not just anywhere. They’re in the ‘I’m either myself or dead’ camp. Michael’s well-known because he’s well-known, and because he so strongly felt the need to share his values with the world, he thereby revealed himself. There could be many of us. Some may prefer to remain unknown. I don’t know yet.

As I said before, everything is on a spectrum, so you could be a more or less extreme leader type, and a more or less extreme family type. There may be sub-types. The ‘lone wolf’ is an extreme leader type. Aldous Huxley said “The more original and powerful a mind, the more inclined it is to the religion of solitude.” I think lone wolves relate best to other lone wolves; other types will simply be too different. They’re introverted because there’s a whole world inside their heads, and much of the outside input they’d encounter would actually hinder their progress. As a leader, stepping outside of the leader pack can be incredibly demoralising. Out there, there's a flattening going on. If you have a sleepover with kids, all of a sudden it's about sex. If you say the n word, it's suddenly all about race. And you think, “Why is everything about sex and race? Are there not more things to discuss? Develop some granularity in your approach already!” The flattening is in full swing at the moment, with so many red herrings slapping around that you can’t hear yourself think. (Contemplating that kinda makes me hungry... All those shiny fish...) Maybe the majority do this in order to feel safer: if they can reduce indeterminate phenomena to something simple, then they can feel like they know what they're dealing with. Simplify and blame. It’s a stupid game, and so boring. I'm not at all surprised that artists feel the need to invent entirely new worlds to escape this shit.

So there you have it: there is a naturalistic, evolutionary explanation for so many of the specific human behaviours that we observe in society. The choices people make are, in large part, due to their evolutionary type. Encountering Michael was the icing on my cake of investigation, because I reasoned there had to be an explanation as to why we’re so similar and I knew that it wasn’t due to mere chance.

So if you’re a sensitive, introverted kid who likes doing their own thing and your family gives you hell for being strange and different — for God’s sake, understand that there’s nothing wrong with you. Nothing at all. You’ve been designed to be the way you are over millions of years of evolution, because this is the only way humanity can work. You are the reason we have electricity, cars, great works of art, beautiful films and music, incredible dancers and athletes, mathematics, poetry, physics, philosophy, engineering, comfortable houses and beds, heating, space exploration, wonderful stories and the rule of law. All of these things were invented by leader types. The most important thing is to know who you are. It’s Quincy Jones’ first rule too. Once you know that, you will make much better decisions in all areas of your life. “A guy can dig ditches and enjoy it”, as Jimi said. If you want to be happy and effective, you must be doing things that align with your particular nature.

Don’t waste years doing things other people tell you to do. What do they know about you, anyway? Do they know your deepest desires? No they don’t, because to discover them is long, personal work. No-one can do it for you. Your mum can’t do it for you. I don’t care if she’s your mother and she wants the best for you -- she’s not you. Don’t do things for extrinsic rewards like money or fame. I recall reading a teacher who complained that all his kids just want to be famous, but then he asked them “Famous for what?” People who become famous do so because they’re passionate and obsessed with something and thereby become very good at it. Don’t desire to be famous, desire to become obsessed with something. Fall in love with something. Then you’ll probably become famous anyway, but by then you won’t care, because all you want to do is the thing you’re obsessed with.

But family types are essential too. Just because they don’t innovate, they create a stable society in which everyone — including leader types — can live. They create and maintain order, follow instructions and implement your ideas. They start families and actually create the people society needs, including all future leaders.

The two types must know about, respect and be thankful for each other, for neither could live without the other.

Masses of conflict rage each day because people think that other people act the way they do by choice. But things are so incredibly ingrained, that it’s quite absurd to think that anyone makes any kind of choice. We do have free will, but can only exercise it to the point our fundamental orientation allows. Can’t fight one’s nature, as Orwell said. Fight it too long and she’ll make you pay, with your health or your life.

It is apparent to me that my entire discussion has remained completely materialistic. I’ve not touched upon so-called ‘supernatural’ phenomena at all. I don’t like the term ‘supernatural’ because, if something exists, it is natural — no matter how perplexing or odd, everything is Nature, everything is natural. It’s not like the earth and its rocks are natural, and then precognition of the future and witnessing midnight processions of long-deceased people — as Jung and others did, centuries apart mind you — are outside of the natural. Everything is natural. If it happened, it was natural, and there is an explanation.

Now it might seem boring to learn that all these things in fact have a boring materialistic explanation. But as usual, there are many more things that we don’t yet know. The perplexing nature of time, for example. I suspect that time is very different to how most people conceive of it, but that discussion is for another time.

Back to the strictly material. A few hundred years of culture won’t put a dent in millennia of evolution. Culture is itself an outgrowth of evolution, and it needs to humbly acknowledge this fact instead of thinking that now it is king. The patterns and drives of Nature are king, and they explain everything. DS 06-07/2020

#society #hsp #highlysensitive #leaders #followers #sociology #anthropology #philosophy #orwell #michaeljackson #nature #evolution #biology #physiology #physiognomy #sexuality #attraction #neurobiology #dancing #movement #intelligence #psychology #Jung #spirit #love #art #artists #writers #music #singers

[jmrphy]

Hard Forking Reality (Part 3): Apocalypse, Evil, and Intelligence

To the degree we can refer to one objective reality recognized intersubjectively by most people — to the degree there persists anything like a unified, macro-social codebase — it is most widely known as capitalism. As Nick Bostrom acknowledges, capitalism can be considered a loosely integrated (i.e. distributed) collective superintelligence. Capitalism computes global complexity better than humans can, to create functional systems supportive of life, but only on condition that that life serves the reproduction of capitalism (ever expanding its complexity). It is a self-improving AI that improves itself by making humans "offers they can't refuse," just like Lucifer is known to do. The Catholic notion of Original Sin encodes the ancient awareness that the very nature of intelligent human beings implies an originary bargain with the Devil; perennial warnings about Faustian bargains capture the intuition that the road to Hell is paved with what seem like obviously correct choices. Our late-modern social-scientific comprehension of capitalism and artifical intelligence is simply the recognition of this ancient wisdom in the light of empirical rationality: we are uniquely powerful creatures in this universe, but only because, all along, we have been following the orders of an evil, alien agent set on our destruction. Whether you put this intuition in the terms of religion or artificial intelligence makes no difference.

Thus, if there exists an objective reality outside of the globe's various social reality forks — if there is any codebase running a megamachine that encompasses everyone — it is simply the universe itself recursively improving its own intelligence. This becoming autonomous of intelligence itself was very astutely encoded as Devilry, because it implies a horrific and torturous death for humanity, whose ultimate experience in this timeline is to burn as biofuel for capitalism (Hell). It is not at all exaggerating to see the furor of contemporary "AI Safety" experts as the scientific vindication of Catholic eschatology.

Why this strange detour into theology and capitalism? Understanding this equivalence across the ancient religios and contemporary scientific registers is necessary for understanding where we are headed, in a world where, strictly speaking, we are all going to different places. The point is to see that, if there ever was one master repository of source code in operation before the time of the original human fork (the history of our "shared social reality"), its default tendency is the becoming real of all our diverse fears. In the words of Pius, modernity is "the synthesis of all heresies." (Hat tip to Vince Garton for telling me about this.) The point is to see that the absence of shared reality does not mean happy pluralism; it only means that Dante underestimated the number of layers in Hell. Or his publisher forced him to cut some sections; printing was expensive back then.

Bakker's evocative phrase, "Semantic Apocolypse," nicely captures the linguistic-emotional character of a society moving toward Hell. Unsurprisingly, it's reminiscent of the Tower of Babel myth.

The software metaphor is useful for translating the ancient warning of the Babel story — which conveys nearly zero urgency in our context of advanced decadence — into scientific perception, which is now the only register capable of producing felt urgency in educated people. The software metaphor "makes it click," that interpersonal dialogue has not simply become harder than it used to be, but that it is strictly impossible to communicate — in the sense of symbolic co-production of shared reality — with most interlocutors across most channels of most currently existing platforms: there is simply no path between my current block on my chain and their current block on their chain.

If I were to type some code into a text file, and then I tried to submit it to the repository of the Apple iOS Core Team, I would be quickly disabused of my naïve stupidity by the myriad technical impossibilities of such a venture. The sentence hardly parses. I would not try this for very long, because my nonsensical mental model would produce immediate and undeniable negative feedback: absolutely nothing would happen, and I'd quit trying. When humans today continue to use words from shared languages, in semi-public spaces accessible to many others, they are very often attempting a transmission that is technically akin to me submitting my code to the Apple iOS Core Team. A horrifying portion of public communication today is best understood as a fantasy and simulation of communicative activity, where the infrastructural engineering technically prohibits it, unbeknownst to the putative communicators. The main difference is that in public communication there is not simply an absence of negative feedback informing the speaker that the transmissions are failing; much worse, there are entire cultural industries based on the business model of giving such hopeless transmission instincts positive feedback, making them feel like they are "getting through" somewhere; by doing this, those who feel like they are "getting through" have every reason to feel sincere affinity and loyalty to whatever enterprise is affirming them, and the enterprise then skims profit off of these freshly stimulated individuals: through brand loyalty, clicks, eyeballs for advertisers, and the best PR available anywhere, which is genuine, organic proselytizing by fans/customers. These current years of our digital infancy will no doubt be the source of endless humor in future eras.

[Tangent/aside/digression: People think the space for new and "trendy" communicative practices such as podcasting is over-saturated, but from the perspective I am offering here, we should be inclined to the opposite view. Practices such as podcasting represent only the first efforts to constitute oases of autonomous social-cognitive stability across an increasingly vast and hopelessly sparse social graph. If you think podcasts are a popular trend, you are not accounting for the numerator, which would show them to be hardly keeping up with the social graph. We might wonder whether, soon, having a podcast will be a basic requirement for anything approaching what the humans of today still remember as socio-cognitive health. People may choose centrifugal disorientation, but if they want to exist in anything but the most abject and maligned socio-cognitive ghettos of confusion and depression (e.g. Facebook already, if you're feed looks anything like mine), elaborately purposeful and creatively engineered autonomous communication interfaces may very well become necessities.]

I believe we have crossed a threshold where spiraling social complexity has so dwarfed our meagre stores of pre-modern social capital to render most potential soft-fork merges across the social graph prohibitively expensive. Advances in information technology have drastically lowered the transaction costs of soft-fork collaboration patterns, but they've also lowered the costs of instituting and maintaing hard forks. The ambiguous expected effect of information technology may be clarified — I hypothesize — by considering how it is likely conditional on individual cognitive capacities. Specifically, the key variable would be an individual's general intelligence, their basic capacity to solve problems through abstraction.

This model predicts that advances in information technology will lead high-IQ individuals to seek maximal innovative autonomy (hacking on their own hard forks, relative to the predigital social source repository), while lower-IQ individuals will seek to outsource the job of reality-maintainence, effectively seeking to minimize their own innovative autonomy. It's important to recognize that, technically, the emotional correlate of experiencing insufficiency relative to environmental complexity is Fear, which involves the famous physiological state of "fight or flight," a reaction that evolved for the purpose of helping us escape specific threats in short, acute situations. The problem with modern life, as noted by experts on stress physiology such as Robert Sapolsky, is that it's now very possible to have the "fight or flight" response triggered by diffuse threats that never end.

If intelligence is what makes complexity manageable, and overwhelming complexity generates "fight or flight" physiology, and we are living through a Semantic Apocalypse, then we should expect lower-IQ people to be hit hardest first: we should expect them to be frantically seeking sources of complexity-containment in a fashion similar to if they were being chased by a saber-tooth tiger. I think that's what we are observing right now, in various guises, from the explosion of demand for conspiracy theory to social justice hysteria. These are people whose lives really are at stake, and they're motivated accordingly, to increasingly desperate measures.

These two opposite inclinations toward reality-code maintenance, conditional on cognitive capacity, then become perversely complementary. As high-IQ individuals are increasingly empowered to hard fork reality, they will do so differently, according to arbitrary idiosyncratic preferences (desire or taste, essentially aesthetic criteria). Those who only wish to outsource their code maintenance to survive excessive complexity are spoiled for choice, as they can now choose to join the hard fork of whichever higher-IQ reality developer is closest to their affective or socio-aesthetic ideal point.

In the next part, I will try to trace this history back through the past few decades.

#theory #apocalypse #intelligence #accelerationism #iq #cognition #fear #emotions #complexity #communication #capitalism #equality #inequality #catholic #catholicism #artificial intelligence #AI #God #Devil

[6stronghands]

please read. it’s long. but i need to say this:

Broken in the past year:

Dishwasher, refrigerator, microwave, furnace, water heater, toilet, gas fireplace, TV, 2 laptops, 2 cellphones, my eyeglasses, the locking system, door handle, driver window (stuck DOWN not up, of course) and catalytic converter on my 15 year old minivan and the other car, a 22 year old beloved 4 Runner had to be junked because it was so decrepit and unfixable (it’s a credit to those amazing early generation Runners though, because it made 260,000 miles and basically ran on Marvel Mystery Oil, Seafoam, and pep talks at the end), then I found out that my home has serious foundation issues, and now, NOW, the dryer. 

My new (used) Mustang got hit ONE WEEK after I bought it, by a drunk guy in a big ol F150, as I was my way home to kansas after caring for three (3!!!) family members in the hospital in Utah for four months. The whole time I was in Utah, I was like, holy god these guys are shockingly bad drivers (and I’ve driven extensively around a ton of states). There’s this move I call The Utah Special, a lane changing move where they don’t signal, they don’t check their blind spots, they don’t move vertically….they just horizontally zoom into a space they want in the next lane. I saw so many near misses and actual accidents during my time there. And lo and behold, LITERALLY AS I’M ON MY WAY OUT OF THAT HELL STATE, at the motherfreakin base of the canyon, four hours from Colorado and freedom from the religious insanity and repression that manifests as the angriest, most aggressive, flat out incompetent drivers I’ve ever seen, a jackalope did the Utah Special on me and my new car.  

It screwed up the alignment and tire pressure monitor and left a big dent on the drivers door. Luckily i didn’t run into the giant concrete wall that he spun me into, because I’m an experienced driver, esp in correcting a bad, fast turn, but it was close. The guy is now trying to avoid payment so I’ve been driving around with a beatup looking car. 

One month after i got back to Lawrence, a guy backed into me at the store, and I ended up using the 100 bucks he gave me for groceries, and trying to buff out the back myself, which didn’t work. This is my childhood dream car btw, the only nice thing I’ve ever owned (and it looks a lot nicer than it is, it’s very bare bones inside and out, it just looks slick. It took almost two years and three states of looking to find a good Mustang for such a low price). 

And now. 

Now I’ve got a gutted dryer, parts spread out to hell and gone, because Samsung dryers have the worst design and the cheapest parts (seriously, don’t ever buy Samsung appliances. Three different parts stores and repair people told me they refuse to work on Samsungs or carry parts for them any more because the design is so bad and the parts are so cheap). I thought I fixed it by replacing the circuit board, but now I think it’s the thermal fuse switch which is located UNDER and BEHIND the drum, not in the more accessible places other brands put it. But that’s not irritating enough, no no, now it turns out I have to learn how to solder because they didn’t use screws or plugs for the fuse mount, no no, they soldered it on, so I had to drill the fucker out and and buy a solder iron and now I’m watching how-to-solder videos on youtube. 

And (of course there’s an AND) the charging port on my 3rd used cell phone broke, and I don’t have time to order a replacement port and do it myself, so I took it into one of those overpriced walk in places (for $130 dollars!!! for fifteen minutes work). Picked it up five minutes before they closed last night, and now the screen is unresponsive. According to the good people of the internet, since I can’t get it to reboot, it’s probably a badly seated digitizer that got bumped when they did the replacement. I have to take a break from my how-to-solder videos and go in and convince a bunch of 20 year old guys to fix my phone and not charge me for it. 

So. This is a lot. 

And because we are in the aptly named bad timeline, my personal life has pretty much echoed all the broken down stuff. I have had some weird, hard to diagnose, health crap that cost me one job and has prevented me from finding another. So I just do a bunch of volunteer stuff now, and keep applying to worse and worse jobs, hoping someone, somewhere will take me. My new dog (who I adopted because I’ve been so overwhelmed and stressed, I was freaking out one day and my sister was like, I KNOW WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, YOU NEED A DOG, and she was one hundred percent right, everything is better with a good dog) got attacked at the park, by a Husky owned by a RedditGuy, who then RAN when I was trying to revive my dog, and drove away in a Mercedes with a license obscurer. The only reason I know who he is, is because a quick thinking teenager ran after him and tried to get his name (which the guy wouldn’t give) and the teen took pics of him with his cellphone (don’t shit on Millenials around me, just don’t. All I see are good kids doing good stuff under bad circumstances). (Also, just fwiw, there are all kinds of Huskies being surrendered at shelters and involved in attacks because, and this is so dumb it just kills me, people are watching Game of Thrones and deciding they want their very own Direwolf, without having the experience or willingness to take on a breed that needs a lot of training and reinforcement and care. Huskies are great dogs if they have great owners, like a lot of other great but high-care breeds). 

The medical bills were over $4000, which I had to take a loan out for. There was a court hearing, and the judge ruled in my favor, and ordered the guy to pay, by March 1st. You won’t be surprised at all, because FML, that the guy hasn’t paid, and is contesting it, which means more court stuff. This has all been stressful as hell, but this dog is genuinely the most amazing dog I’ve ever had; he is worth any trouble and expense. I would sell my Mustang, if I had to, to keep this tiny, adorable fuzzball (some kind of poodle-terrier mix, I think, I dunno. He was a rescue dog who was fostered with an inmate in a local prison, Safe Harbor Prison Dogs, check it out, they’re great) I’ve never had a companion dog before. I’ve had family dogs who have all been great, but I’ve never had one where they are bred to be a companion, that’s their work, like a work-dog needs work to be happy and sane. He is carrying my kid and me in his soft little paws; he does good work, this guy. He is always happy, very energetic when you want, calm and cuddly when you want, incredibly sensitive and attuned, unnervingly intelligent and a joy to train, and as soft as a bunny. I have to brush him every single day because of his crazy Fizzgig hair, but that’s fine. He rides on my shoulder in the car and fits inside a tote bag so I can sneak him lots of places. I’ve socialized him from the beginning (which is why I was at that damn park) so he’s totally silent in public places like stores. He loves people, especially kids, and if I ever get off the job-hunting, broken-thing-fixing treadmill, I’d like to volunteer him as a therapy dog in hospitals or wherever. He’s like my very own Daemon, my own Pantalaimon. A gift and a blessing at any time, but especially now, when things are Challenging. 

Then. Then the worst thing. Something really bad happened to my one of my kids. Something so bad that I can’t talk about it in a public place like this. I can barely talk about it in my Al-Anon support group. I spend a lot of energy not thinking about it. I have learned a lot of things in the past few years, like A LOT. I know so much more now, about so many, many things. But this bad thing is something I wish I never knew, and it’s not fixable, only recoverable. 

I have never, ever been so continually sad and angry. It’s been bad timing for my mental health, the Me Too movement. I had a friend visit and he was talking about it, and was telling me that it’s turned into a witch hunt, that things aren’t really this bad for women, that maybe women and men just speak different languages and have different needs and wants, that if things have been this bad, why didn’t women say something sooner, and I just….I couldn’t talk. He wanted me to give him specific examples of male violations in my life, and I literally didn’t know where to start. I can list so many, like every woman alive. I could list hundreds of small things, things where you just accept it because what else can you do, and other things, things that were not small, but you ignore, because you actually know the guy and you know he’s genuinely a mostly good guy, or trying to be, or will be some day, or has a family who loves and depends on him, or maybe I didn’t have the vocabulary or confidence or experience to safely call him out then, or maybe I didn’t know if calling him out would ruin his life, and for real, I could see that he would some day evolve into A Good Man, An Ally, and I didn’t want to jeopardize that. Because that’s real, that dynamic. It doesn’t fit into any black and white social media woke doctrine, but it’s real. I have hurt people through ignorance, and I have learned and evolved, and there have been a few specific times where I can look back in gratitude that someone educated me in a gracious, patient way, because it changed me for the better. Do men know this? That people like me aren’t calling them on stuff? That the problem is much, much worse than the revelations of the Me Too movement? That we let pretty much all the small and medium stuff go? Do they know? Are they so uneducated, so culturally indoctrinated, so blind, to other men’s bad behavior, to their own, that they really think that this is all an over-reaction or mixed signals or just women looking to be angry about something??? 

 I know it’s a lot more complicated than that, because goddamn life usually is. There have been hundreds of not-terrible and semi-bad violations in my 40 years, that I’ve just lived with, and then there’s been a handful of genuinely, life-altering-ly bad ones. The ones that teach you to to beware, that there are predators who prey, and you are just meat. But I couldn’t articulate any of this to this friend, this guy who feels so defensive and attacked by the movement. No one has accused him of anything, he’s just feeling defensive. He thinks people are unfair to men, that men are trying their best, that women need to explain more nicely. 

I have been so angry, about so much, for months now. I usually blow up fast and I’m done. I’m usually the poster girl for Onward And Upward, Life Is Beautiful, Everything’s Awesome. This constant anger is exhausting. And I wish I was only angry, but I’m also broken-hearted. Broken. Everything’s broken, everything keeps breaking. Bad people, careless people, indifferent people, they keep ruining things and getting away with things. The news isn’t good, not politically, not economically, not environmentally, not anything. All signs point to things getting much, much worse. 

I will say this, I am smarter than I was a year ago. 

I seem to only learn by doing, to learn the hard way. I know a lot more now. Like A LOT, in a pretty short span of time. I am not the same person I was a year ago. I am not as sweet, and not as optimistic, but I am seasoned. I’m better at problem solving. I know there's always going to be another damn thing, whatever it is. I know the importance of good tools and resources and support, whether it’s fixing broken cars or broken hearts. That came out trite, but it’s true. I’ve learned that sometimes the only good thing to come out of a bad thing is knowledge, if you use it to recover or evolve, or to help someone else. Sometimes the only silver lining is that you’ve got newfound empathy. We need more empathy in the world, so that’s not nothing. I am so, so worried about the future, about what my kids are going to have to learn in order to navigate their own personal and cultural despair. They’re gonna have to get tougher, faster, while protecting their gentle hearts and giving natures. That’s tricky. I hope they’ll remember that we’re in this together, that the only way to survive is by leaning on and helping each other. Another thing that sounds trite, but is the truest thing I know. I’ve learned to talk about things, to ask questions, to ask again if I don’t understand (and again, and again), and to say to people, I need you, I’m stuck, I’m headfucked, I’m heartfucked, help. Help me. Using your resources, whether they’re youtube how-to videos, therapy, doctors, friends, Al-Anon groups, dogs, whatever, is the only way I know how to get over and through. 

It’s kind of strange to FEEL how much stronger I am right now, than a year ago. Because things are much worse; something that would have broken me for good, if Then-Me had known. But Now-Me has soldiered through some shit by leaning hard on my resources, and because of those resources, not through inner grit or stoicism, but the resources, I’m tougher, smarter, better equipped. I am not exactly happier, but I do have happy moments. That’s a big deal. I am afraid for the future, but I know that, at least as long as I’m able to fight, I CAN fight. 

I have leaned on some of you here. Some of you are my safe places, are resources, tools, friends. Genuine, real ones. I am stronger because of you. I can write and write, but never truly articulate what that has meant, what it means to me. You know how vets are with other vets? The way they’ll meet up after they leave the military, and fall into each other’s arms, the way they trust each other for the rest of their lives? I feel that way about you guys. I’ve been in the motherfucking foxhole, and some of you guys climbed in and covered my head and held my shaking hands. I just have no words. The ‘no atheists in a foxhole’ thing isn’t true. I still don’t believe in God, but I believe in friends, in good people, in the righteous fighters who get no acclaim, no awards, but quietly, bravely, change the world around them a little at a time, to great cumulative effect. I can say I love you, I’m so grateful, you’re wonderful, but really, I have no words other than, thank you. Thank you. THANK YOU. 

#personal #thank you

[mercadosadaf]

The Value of Swimming In Uncertain Times

Hi Swimmers

Firstly, apologies for the radio silence over the last few weeks on the blog - we've had the whole Swim Smooth team busily engaged in a complete revamp of the entire www.swimsmooth.com website and coaching interface, and whilst we are not quite done, we are getting very close and hope to resume the blog and our usual community engagement very soon. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Today, Head Coach Paul Newsome, has prepared a reflective piece for you on the value of swimming and what it means to us all, especially in these uncertain times. We hope it allows you to pause over a cup of tea or coffee and think a little bit about your own swimming and how your relationship with the water might have changed somewhat in the last 12 months.

Paul features three brief stories of some inspiring swimmers he has had the pleasure to work with and how their swimming journeys have been significantly altered by the coronavirus, mostly for the better. Paul summarises with some of his own take-home points on how this period has changed his own thinking on swimming somewhat and how his ordinarily extrinsic competitive goalposts have shifted to a place of intrinsic challenge and finding a new calm with that. So please, relax, put your feet up and let’s get a little zen for a moment.

The Value of Swimming in Uncertain Times

I was recently invited as a guest on the new An Open Water Swimmer's Podcast with host Will Ellis (release date: 28th February here) to discuss my love and passion for swimming - an easy topic for me! Will is a great host and someone I'd taken for a Swim Smooth analysis session as part of a group over a decade ago in the UK. Given my area of technical interest in swimming, many podcasts that we've done with other hosts have always centered on these elements, but Will took a very different slant, one which focused very much on the "why" of swimming.

Why do I swim? Why do I enjoy the water? Why swimming and not another sport? I came away with a headful of thoughts that I'd either never given due consideration to before, or maybe some that crystallized a growing appreciation I've started to foster of late?

Given the current state of play with COVID-19 restrictions on our sport over the last 12 months, I feel my own relationship with water has not necessarily changed per se but it's definitely evolved. Perhaps though, it's me who's changed and it's this period of intrinsic reflection that has heightened the "why" behind what we all love to do? For many of you, could the absence of being able to do the thing you love or the thing that perhaps challenges you the most (as a triathlete maybe?) be the necessary catalyst to kick your swimming to new heights of appreciation (however you measure that) when we do all come through this? I'm certainly seeing that in myself and my squad of very lucky swimmers over here in Perth, Australia.

Lady Luck

Over the last 12 months, Perth has been heralded as one of the best places on the planet with respect to the relatively few restrictions and impact of the coronavirus - many of us scarcely realizing how lucky we are. Next week will see 3,500 people start one of the largest open water swims on the planet, the Rottnest Channel Swim, in which I will be competing with a good friend over the 20km distance. We have, however, just come out of a heavily publicized (albeit very short) 5-day lockdown here in Perth which restricted access to the pools and saw us only being able to swim solo in the open water or with one other family member. This incident garnered international press on account of the very rapid and focused response to a single case in the community transferred between a quarantined hotel guest and a security guard. The whole state came to a grinding halt for just one case - everything ceased and panic was high. Despite extensive testing (myself included) of those who may have been in the vicinity of this one person, fortunately, no other community transmission has occurred. Consequently, life is returning to some form of normality again. 

One of the hardest things I've personally struggled with over the last 12 months though is being able to fully appreciate and empathize with just how brutal this period must have been - and continues to be - for many of you from the perspective of being able to simply enjoy the pleasures of a nice swim. Lady Luck has shone down on me, and for why, I do not know? I feel a toiling mixed sense of guilt, of pure luck, and of umbrage at myself for the seemingly petty feeling of missing the ability to travel overseas and share my love of swimming with you all, wherever you might be. I miss it so much and yet feel I have no right to do so given where I have the good fortune to be right now. 

I had a frank conversation before Christmas with my Mum about this. Many of you know Linda as "Mother Smooth" and if you've ever ordered anything from us, she'd have sent it to you. True to the adage that "Mum always knows best", I finally managed to pluck up the courage and expand on how excited I was to be taking my wife and two kids camping over the Christmas holidays to a beautiful town called Albany in the South West which we'd all visited together as a family a few years earlier. Mother Smooth couldn't understand why I'd not told her sooner, to which I responded that I didn't want to make her feel bad. "Feel bad?" she quizzed, "I am at my happiest when I know you are happy". Profound stuff - good old Mum!

The Changing Tide

So, what has this all really got to do with swimming? If you are in the northern hemisphere, chances are you are sick to the back teeth of hearing about the coronavirus and maybe even more so the thought that other pockets of the world are experiencing far fewer restrictions than yourself currently. Last week's swift lockdown gave me a rapid reminder though just how uncertain these times can be - the tide can change on a dime so easily. What has been remarkable for me has been watching how those of you who still continue in enforced lockdowns have survived this last 12 months and I'd like to recognize some of the cool - and crazy - things you've been doing, obviously simply for the joy of needing to get your swim in! Perhaps you can tell us more about how you've weathered this storm so far?

Helen Webster, UK

I met Helen in March 2014 at the 220 Triathlon Show in London. As the editor of the 220 Triathlon Magazine, Helen had taken it upon herself to learn to swim freestyle properly for an upcoming triathlon and I was tasked with assisting her with that goal in an Endless Pool and in front of hundreds of people. For someone with very little swimming experience at that point, Helen did amazingly well in front of such a crowd and it’s a testament to her bubbly “can do” spirit that she took on this challenge!

We spent a good hour or so filming her stroke, analyzing it (in front of everyone!), and then getting back into the pool to correct her issues which mainly centred around developing confidence in the water and improving the timing of her stroke, specifically her breathing. Back then, Helen was what we’d have described as a classic Bambino - someone very new to swimming with a relatively high level of anxiety in the water - so to see the following images circulating on Helen’s Facebook page in the last couple of weeks simply blew my mind! Helen’s gone all Bear Grylls on us and now is not happy unless she has to break the ice in her backyard pool just to ensure she gets her swim in! I’m so proud of her as a mate!

Here's Helen on what the last 12 months have meant for her swimming:

"Open-water swimming has been a key part of my training week ever since taking those first steps with Paul all those years ago! Lockdown had made me realise just how important swimming is to me though and in so many ways. Not living near the coast and with managed venues nearby forced to close I've realised how much I rely on swimming for lifting my mood, giving me a pause from a busy world and fully immersing myself in nature. I'm a pool swimmer too and with centres all closed I'm even missing the tang of chlorine and having to do kick drills!!

It sounds melodramatic but a tearful moment on the phone with a friend prompted her to gift me a garden pool and swimming tethered has given me a route back to the water (thanks to Swim Smooth Coach Jason Tait for the tethered swim sets!). It's also led me to a new swim community who are making the most of what they have and finding humour in sitting in ice baths and under hosepipes, or sharing tips for how to stop your garden pool freezing!

I can't wait to have my 'proper' swimming back and believe me, will never take it for granted again. I'm planning a swim challenge for September and keeping fingers crossed it goes ahead!"

Sue Allingham, Denmark

Sue attended one of our 3-day Swim Smooth Coach Education Courses in Mallorca, Spain back in May 2019 and was clearly a super-passionate swimmer and coach. We’ve remained in close contact via Messenger since and she frequently sends me crazy pictures of where she’s been swimming, however, nothing could quite prepare me for this one - her frozen Margarita experience (as she calls it)!

When I asked Sue about what the last 12 months have meant for her swimming, she said this:

"A year ago I entered the World Ice Swimming Championships in Bled Slovenia for a laugh. 2 weeks later I broke both my wrists and then Lockdown! By April I was going stir crazy and the day I had my casts removed, I got back into the sea, as the pools were shut. Little did I know that I would continue going in every day since! As my wrists got stronger, I could swim longer but the thought of trying to pull on a wetsuit was hanging over my head. By the time I probably could get one on I no longer felt the need. I continued to swim throughout the year and ended up becoming the Danish age-group champion in 25m & 100m Freestyle - Ice swimming and 5k Openwater. 

A year on from Covid and we are still in the sea and simply just grabbing any opportunity to jump in the water, to try new beaches or temperatures. As you can see from the picture, we’ve started making our own frozen Margaritas! 

What will I do when the pools open again? Dive in and just keep swimming! Never thought I’d miss the black line so much. Swimming as always is such a social thing & drinking coffee with friends after each swim has really made Lockdown actually enjoyable. Already looking at SwimRuns in Sweden, hopefully as it’s close by we may be allowed to travel. Otherwise lots of pre-paid events carried over from last year. I live in hope. 

One thing is for sure, the sea is always open!"

Mark Turner, Switzerland

Mark also attended one of our other 3-day Swim Smooth Coach Education Courses in Mallorca, Spain (the week after Sue) and had just a few months prior completed the Rottnest Channel Swim here in Perth. Mark set up the world’s most prestigious multi-day cycling event for amateurs, the Haute Route, which is a brutally tough challenge in a breathtakingly beautiful landscape. Mark was also the man behind Ellen MacArthur’s sailing career (who set the world record in 2005 for the fastest solo circumnavigation of the globe), the Offshore Challenges/OC Sport business, and the Extreme Sailing Series, and is widely seen as a visionary in the sport of sailing. And, if all that wasn't enough, Mark led the Volvo Ocean Race series as CEO in 2016/17. Needless to say, Mark is not someone to do things by half and is always up for a (big) challenge! 

Mark now lives in Switzerland on the banks of Lake Geneva and is fastidious about his swimming, especially a weekly completion of the infamous 10 x 400m Red Mist Endurance session! Like with many parts of the world, Mark has had unreliable access to his local pool over the last 12 months and so has turned to the great outdoors instead…even during the middle of winter! Hooking up regularly with like-minded souls in these freezing temperatures has been what has kept Mark going and will stand him in good stead when the world finally comes back to some sense of normality.

It Is What It Is

I think one of the most obvious things with each of these three swimmers - and yourself hopefully too - is that they’ve simply rolled with the punches that 2020 and beyond has brought their way. They’ve got on with it, adapted, pivoted, and thrived in a new environment and in doing so sought out other goals to keep them motivated and in the game. Resilience personified. We always talk so virtuously in training and racing about “control the controllable”, and clearly, none of this is in any of our control right now. Way back in April 2020 when we were still in lockdown and I was personally unable to coach, a very close friend and one of my athletes, Nolan McDonnell told me to “stop trying to save us all - we can look after ourselves!” in response to me frantically trying to work out how to keep everyone fit and engaged when I couldn’t be with them face-to-face. It really struck a chord with me, and whilst it didn’t happen overnight, I did begin to accept the situation. 

Knowing I wouldn’t be able to travel and spread the Swim Smooth word - as has been my life over the last 16 or so years - was a real blow, but ever so gradually I started to move beyond this and to focus on what I could do, not what I couldn’t. For me personally, that’s meant plenty more time at home with the family, and as we are seeing on the pool deck at the moment, plenty of opportunities to be super consistent with our respective training schedules too. The squad here in Perth has never swum so quickly before, ever! Why? Everyone has their groundhog day schedule dialled in and they’re sticking to it because there’s nowhere else to go, and there’s something very centring about that, zen even. 

Fancying a challenge myself - and recognizing the collective benefit of encouraging others to follow suit - I have even got myself back into doing a few triathlons, marathon swims, and even the odd SwimRun event too! Taking on a range of varied challenges was in an effort to not put all our eggs into one basket in case events got canceled or postponed. 

Again, I’m super privileged to be able to do these things right now, and part of that appreciation brings a whole new angle on why we do what we do. For me, it’s all been about my shared experience of training up with one of my best mates Chris to do the Rottnest Channel Swim together as a Duo next week. With last week’s unprecedented lockdown it looked certain to be canceled but you know what, I wasn’t bothered in the slightest! The religiously attended Sunday morning swim with Chris in the river is what it’s all about - not the event itself. Swimming + Best Mate = Win. 

Sure, the race will be a nice finale, but the old adage of “the journey is better than the destination” is what this whole crazy period has really taught me. We egg each other on even in the middle of winter and for me, this has seen a major step away from the profound sense of training for competition’s sake, to training for training’s sake, and for the social camaraderie that this has brought. I wouldn’t change that for the world.

Even if you haven’t had the opportunity (yet) to be quite so free in your activities, that time will come again, hopefully very soon, and in the meantime, just set yourself some little consistency of routine benchmarks to tick off. Get creative like our friends above (just maybe not quite so crazy!). How many swims in the river can you consistently do every Sunday? Can you always ensure you meet up with Bob for your Friday lunchtime jog in the park? Make sure you commit to that group ride on Zwift you booked in for on the Companion app etc. It’s the little things, done often that will keep you going and when the world opens up again, you’ll be ready! 

Thanks for reading. Swim on!

Paul

from Sports http://www.feelforthewater.com/2021/02/the-value-of-swimming-in-uncertain-times.html via http://www.rssmix.com/

#sports

[maya-spirit1]

​ Healing The Nation - The Role of Spirituality in This Process

After 4 intense years, we have finally been able to assemble enough people to

overturn the rule of hate, and secure a government of love that is based on freedom, equality and justice for all. Throughout Trump’s presidency we have seen the face of evil in bright light; treason, lies, cruelty, denial, hate, discrimation, racism, sexism, and complete lack of humanity. We have organized and formed a great resistance based on democracy, what we call the “blue wave,” which helps with election outreach to voters, educating communities about the needs of the people and the candidates that can execute these demands. Moreover, many organizations joined forces with volunteers all over the country, and dedicated their time to get out the vote. In 2018 the first “blue wave” has resulted in winning democrat majority of the house, and now in 2020, the work and faith of millions has led to the win of Joe Biden as the 46 President of the United States, and Kamala Harris as the first Vice President - a major accomplishment and a relief for the entire world. Additionally, we have democrat house majority, and planning to flip the senate. We saved democracy, thank God! Now what? Well, we have a nation to heal, unite, and properly educate. There are so many lies and misinformation out there that must be corrected. The problem is that many people are severely brainwashed and refuse to see reality - that is where spirituality comes to play. We can’t control other people, but we can pray for them to awaken, we can do the soul work on ourselves so that energy replicates and creates a shift in consciousness.

Let me explain that in more detail, as my spiritual teachers have all told me, when one person spends the time to heal their soul, the healing they experience heals people around them; in the community of their family, and friends, but also beyond it. Everything revolves on energy. If we have trauma, or fear, that results in an energy block that can affect our body, mind, soul, and the flow of our lives. That means people can get sick, depressed, addicted to all sorts of things, and disconnected from themselves and others. The more individuals that heal themselves and find peace, and happiness, the more the energy in the world shifts so there is less violence. It’s hard to understand or believe this concept at first when you haven’t been around spiritual teachings for long, but as you continue your spiritual journey, you will understand it and

see it more and more. For example, the resistance to the Trump administration has evolved from fear to faith over the past 4 years. At first, we were terrified, but the constant stress has forced us to be strong, united and have faith. Too much destruction was happening for us to fall in fear - we had to stay strong together, and to do so we incorporated spirituality into our activism. Many leaders of organizations had faith in their background, and they encouraged others around to believe in the power of the people and let go of their fears. That was a major accomplishment. As you know from blog 6 where I shared about my experience of volunteering for the Biden’s campaign, the campaign has incorporated faith into our work. I truly believe that helped us win. When we lift each other, we rise together. Moreover, as I mentioned in my blog about gratitude, working hard and praying for the outcome we want arises the feeling of gratitude when the prayer is answered. The happiness that comes out of that brings the warm feeling of grace and love for the divine - it also restores the relationship with the divine because when prayers are answered, we feel safe and protected by the divine.

To heal the division and hurts of this nation, I see a force of love moving this process. There is a lot of hate, and fear that can not be addressed through the mind, it needs to be moved energetically, and transformed with love and forgiveness. It is not easy. I have had many conversations with other Biden’s volunteers about the ability to forgive the evilness and lack of humanity presented by Trump supporters, which many of us have felt we can’t forgive, yet if we continue to send back loathing, that energy will only recycle that hate in a never ending cycle. For change to happen, we must be humble, and conscious. Brainwashed people will most likely not change their mind if we talk to them - they need divine intervention; an energetic shift that is greater than us, but driven by hearts capable of compassion. People who hate are lost, hurt, or suffer from some mental disorder, and while humans might not feel capable of sending love to people who are racist, sexist, or violent, we must at least pray for their spiritual awakening, so they may see their errors and transform back to love. Prayer and good intentions are powerful, I have definitely experienced it many times.

As a survivor of many traumas, I have been hurt by many people who I thought I will never forgive, yet surprisingly I have, because they changed. For example, my biological family has hurt me a lot by years of making me the scapegoat after I opened up about the sexual abuse, they couldn’t deal with the truth so all the anger they felt towards my abuser got directed against me - it has hurt me a lot, and has led me to feel guilty for the abuse for a long time. However, as I have been working on myself by meditating daily, participating in spiritual workshops, and challenging myself by attempting to forgive some of the people who have hurt me deeply, the energy of my personal growth has positively impacted the collective. For example, my biological mother has hurt me in the past by not supporting me emotionally after I have told her about the sexual abuse. There have been quite a few times that she has said things that stabbed my heart; unforgettable painful comments, however, after being disconnected from her for a few years - I have used the time to process my traumas, while also praying for her awakening. It worked, after two years she has gotten herself in therapy, support groups, and started a process of divorce from a very toxic marriage. When she has connected with me, I forgave her because she has taken full responsibility, apologized, and has made amends to heal our relationship and commit to be respectful and loving.

Now, if you had told me 5 years ago that this would happen, I would have laughed in your face. Many seem to have the same reaction when asked if they think Trump supporters would ever change. The answer is, we don’t know if we don’t try. Germany of our times is very different than its days as Nazi Germany; it has completley transformed because of the tragedy of World War II. Germany has changed from hate and ignorance, to love and education as its post war leaders have decided what they want for their country, which is educating the past to prevent any repeat of it in the future. They spend a lot of time teaching about the holocoast to make it clear to young people that nazism is destructive and not welcomed. I believe that can happen here too. As we continue to heal ourselves individually, while sending the intention to restore the soul of our nation, educate real facts; science, history, and morals, as well as improving the law to prevent sexist or racist people from running for office. Biden’s win as

president is a turning point for our nation, and the world that is tired of destruction and ready for something better; ready for love. If we transform our education, and teach more about the devastating reality of native Americans' abuse, slavary, and labor injustice, as well as reminding the next generations what we don’t want, we can have the same healing we have seen in Germany, here. I truly believe that this is possible with hard work and faith. It won’t be easy, or quick, but it will happen. In my next blog, I will share more clear steps about this national spiritual healing, and healing the karma of this land, stay tuned.

[lifeispaynefultruth-blog]

Gun Control: From a Modern American Understanding

           The topic of gun control seems a difficult one to discuss here in the United States. This is most likely due to the fact that it, like many other politically-charged issues, can so quickly turn into an argument that an educated discussion seems unattainable (and in certain respects undesirable). The incident that inspired me to write this essay occurred a few weeks ago, when myself and some co-workers discussed this topic on a slow night at work. This had been just after a mass shooting, and as soon as gun control was brought up, the nature of discussion quickly changed. The air (which had been lush with a friendly carefree tone just minutes earlier) became heated with the toxicity of political narratives. Friends turned on one another, finding that they had different opinions on the subject, and ultimately, no ground was gained. At the end of it all, we went back to our respective departments without learning any new facts, evolving our own perspectives, or even agreeing to disagree. All that occurred was a reinforcement of a reality which we already knew. This is an uncomfortable topic, so let’s not discuss this anymore. This is the problem we face in the United States regarding this issue. The discussion is not a comfortable one to be had, therefore we will not have it in order to maintain a sense of civility. And what makes this thought process so overwhelming is that it’s a relatively reasonable conclusion to draw, isn’t it? If a conversation cannot be had civilly, then it should not be had. In other words, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all” just like our parents told us. But this can’t be the end of the discussion. This conversation is too important to not be had, so what do we do? Well, if the conversation is uncomfortable and if it doesn’t get us anywhere, it seems to me that we simply need to change the conversation. Unfortunately, we look at this issue through a political lens, rather than a (for lack of a better word) common sense perspective. This means that there is an “us” against “them” mentality depending on what side of the political spectrum you may fall on. In order for a productive discussion to be had, however, these bipartisan shackles must be thrown off and replaced with open minds and honest mouths. That is to say that it is important for everyone to understand that just because you may hold certain beliefs, it doesn’t make them true. You are a human being that is capable of making mistakes, therefore your beliefs must always be subject to change. Additionally, it’s important to understand that even if you take an opposing view to others, they have legitimate points. Just because you think someone else is wrong in their conclusion doesn’t necessarily mean that the premise of their argument is also wrong. They have a reason for believing what they believe, and you have a responsibility to understand that reasoning if your goal is to achieve clarity. This is the mindset with which I came into this essay, and I believe it is the mindset that we all must have if this issue is ever honestly discussed in this country.

           In the spirit of this newfound open-mindedness, I turned to the NRA. I typically find this group to be dishonest and disagreeable, but I approached them with a new perspective and an open mind. In the article, “When Gun Control Fails” by Awr Hawkins, Hawkins discusses multiple incidents where gun control did not succeed in preventing gun deaths. Among the incidents cited were some fairly recognizable ones, including the Sandy Hook massacre, the Aurora movie theater shooting, the San Bernardino shooting, and the Orlando Pulse shooting. Hawkins makes a good point in stating that, in all these attacks, the shooter legally possessed a weapon. This means that, in all of the incidents mentioned (aside for the Sandy Hook shooting, where Adam Lanza did not actually own the guns used, but got them from a law-abiding gun owner), the shooter in question followed the assigned guidelines including background checks, gun restrictions, and legal carrying permits, yet lives were still lost. To Hawkins’ credit, this is a good point, and to most proponents of gun control legislation, it is a fact that none want brought up. However, I don’t think Hawkins realized that he might as well have been making an argument for the “left” (his words, not mine), which is the opposite of what he was actually trying to do. In stating that gun control as it currently exists does not work, he reaches the conclusion that the “left” (again, this is the “them” in his argument) simply wants control of gun owners. He does not state why or how this control would benefit them, however. I guess this is left to the reader’s imagination. One can easily see how some might imagine guns being taken by a tyrannical left-wing government in a dystopian future, however. This is where the dishonesty of this article lies. Not in the facts, but in what he implies by them. Not only is he stating that gun control doesn’t work (which I’ve already stated he has legitimate evidence for), but he is also arguing that it is dangerous and harmful to gun owners, which he has no evidence for. However, if you think about his claim, it can just as easily be an argument for the opposing side to his views. What he’s really saying in his article is that gun control, in its current iteration, does not go far enough. There may be flaws in the current system of background checks that do not get considered. Additionally, there may be other methods of gun control utilized to prevent gun deaths in ways that the Democratic Party, or the “left” as Hawkins would say, has not considered. This is where I believe his logic to be flawed. The premise is most definitely there, gun control in the way that it currently exists did not work in the instances he described and it may even have more overarching flaws that need to be taken into account before it is instituted on a large scale. However, the idea of this tyrannical “left” seems to be an underlying boogeyman that Hawkins uses to sway his readers into closed-mindedness. His implications of dictatorship among unarmed citizens leaves much to be desired, and it is easy to see that this is an article written from the perspective of someone who is closed-minded to the ideas of others, rather than someone who is willing to compromise. Ultimately, this viewpoint is harmful to modern Americans.

           Take this in contrast to the Vox article, “The research is clear: gun control saves lives” by German Lopez. Now granted, there is no article or author out there without bias (in fact my preference of this article as opposed to the previously mentioned NRA article could be a showing of my own bias) but consider the point the article makes. The piece in itself is a reaction to another piece written in The Washington Post about gun control (and more specifically, how the author of the Post piece, Leah Libresco, has changed her mind on gun control). The Post article claims that gun control in other countries cannot be contributed to their ban on certain weapons and other general measures taken to reduce the amount or lethality of the guns in those countries. Lopez argues against this, stating that no actual studies were cited in this article. Of course, due to this fact, Libresco is technically correct in stating that the decrease in gun deaths and mass shootings in these countries cannot be contributed to the increased gun control, but wise readers may be able to put two and two together. But an important point is made in this article, an honest point that does not leave the reader in suspense upon the lasting effects of gun control. With all the statistics and studies mentioned that prove the author’s point, there is one statement that at least reduces the impact of any supposed “liberal bias” in this piece. Towards the beginning of the article, Lopez claims that while gun control may be able to reduce the overall gun deaths of this country, they cannot be eliminated completely. This is, of course, something that gun owners and gun control advocates can most assuredly agree on. When shuffling through all of the misguided narratives and implications of underdeveloped thought from author to author, from article to article, we can still find a common ground, whether intentionally staked or otherwise. This is perhaps the greatest lesson the 21st century American reader may learn from modern media. In other words, it is quite obvious that narratives reveal unintentional truths about those that conjure them, but this does not always have to be seen in a negative light. Whether these two authors like it or not, and whether or not they would ever admit it to one another or to anyone else, they actually agree on something.

           But this is the unsung truth of the gun control topic. When it is presented to the modern American, it is often done so under the guise of a debate. And this is a problem, because if you present the issue in this form, it implies that there are only two perspectives to this issue. It is an argument, not a dialogue. It’s “us” versus “them”. Pick a side and go to war. “Blast” the other side, “destroy” their opinions on social media. This is not only unproductive, it’s unhealthy. This sort of introduction to the issue at hand is manifested perfectly in the article, “Should More Gun Laws Be Enacted” of procon.org. In this article, the issue is presented at the top and followed by the “top” pro and con gun control arguments. This presents a dichotomy in thought that divides people and ideas, and I’d argue that it was written to do so. Some examples of arguments from the article are as follows on the pro side: “More gun control laws are needed to protect women from domestic abusers and stalkers”, “legally owned guns are frequently stolen and used by criminals”, and “more gun control leads to fewer suicides”. The headlines of these arguments speak for themselves. In fact, the description of these statements as ‘arguments’ speaks more than any information in the article ever could. This information is being presented in a way that is intentionally shaming gun owners, or people that don’t support gun control. The headlines might as well read: “You don’t want women to be abused by harmful spouses or raped on the street do you?”, or “You don’t want a psychopath stealing your gun and using it to shoot up a school do you?”, or “You don’t want to have someone in your household commit suicide do you?”. Provocative, eye-catching, and ultimately, ineffective. How are you supposed to get others to agree with you when you are basically stating that they should be ashamed of their behavior? This ultimately results not in compromise, but in reactionary counterarguments. A doubling down of beliefs that cause them to be solid and unmovable rather than fluid and ever-changing. This response can clearly be seen on the con side: “Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety”, “Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws”, and “Gun control rates and lower gun ownership rates do not prevent suicides”. These are direct denouncements of pro-gun control claims, and they are a reaction to the shame implied upon gun control skeptics by them. It’s a strongly staked nuh-uh that is perpetuated not to denounce the claims of the opposing side, but rather to defend the actions of those denying the claims. For gun control skeptics, the argument is not made out of an attempt to persuade, it is made out of an attempt to defend their actions and beliefs as moral. And to gun control proponents, these arguments are maddening, because they are directly contradicted by evidence that was presented in their own argument. But because they are so set in their beliefs and so unopen to the ideas of anyone who disagrees with them, they cannot and will not realize that this reaction is their own fault.

           There has been a good deal of ambiguity in the arguments presented thus far. This is true, more so in the underlying intentions of those who advocate either for, or against gun control and the news media that covers and perpetuates those intentions. But surely the Constitution can shed some light on the subject. How is it that something as legally binding, as well-written as was jotted by the Framers so many years ago, can be so misinterpreted?  Well, as Victor Haynes points out in his article, “Gun Control in the United States”, the Second Amendment is not as ironclad as is thought to the casual reader. According to this piece, the Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The reader will notice the ambiguity of the Amendment. If you were to ask anyone today what the Second Amendment stated, I submit to you that less than half would mention anything about a well-regulated militia. Most people would not know that it was there and depending on what side of the political spectrum one may fall on, one may wish to pretend it wasn’t there. And that is the fault of the modern media and how it excels at perpetuating laziness in journalism and sensationalism in its headlines. The truth of the matter is that the Second Amendment is one of the vaguest and poorly-written legal pieces ever transcribed in American history. But let the reader be warned not to say that too loudly in a public setting, lest they be labeled a communist that “wants the terrorists to win” (true story). Yet despite all the vagueness, we base not only our current laws on this piece of writing, but our history as well. We take pride in the fact that the United States rose up from the tyrannical clutches of an oppressive nation to become what it is today. And we did it all because of the heroic sacrifices of volunteer soldiers who brought their own weapons to fight off the best fighting force in the world at the time (being of course the British redcoats).

But let’s imagine what that may look like today. Everyone in this nation can agree that it has problems, and that the people in power are not doing all that they can to solve those problems. In fact, I’d argue that a good amount of people would even agree that the government is corrupt in some ways. So where is the revolution? It is most definitely true that we are more well-armed than our forefathers were. According to the article, “Gun Rights vs. Gun Control” of opensecrets.org, there are 88.8 guns per 100 people in the United States. That is more than we have ever had in our nation’s history. This, of course, is not even taking into account the fact that the colonists were sporting smooth-bore muskets and we have semi-automatic assault weapons. So, what is the hold up? This juxtaposition of narrative and reality is slightly comical, but it also presents me with a certain hope. It tells me that if you sift through all the narratives and strip away all the bias, people don’t want to fight. We are not the nation we once were, and in our current state we could never have a revolution and a civil war. Because we are more connected than we have ever been, and although this connectivity has highlighted our disagreements and has in some ways divided us (ironically enough), it has also given people a common understanding of one another. These biases cannot and will not survive if we inform ourselves. And with the potential of things like social media that information could spread like wildfire if we all chose to embrace it. Not narrative, not biased hypocritical principles of a generation before, but the truth.

But the truth is not a static thing, it’s fluid and often bends and shapes itself to fit the perceptions of the time it takes place, and those that are perceiving it. According to a study done by the American Journal of Psychiatry, news media often affects people’s perceptions of gun control and people with mental illness. This is true more so just after a major mass shooting has taken place. According to the study, the likelihood of people to hold negative feelings for those with a serious mental illness and support gun control is significantly higher when they have seen a news piece about it after a mass shooting. This, of course, can be beneficial in that it causes beneficial legislation to be passed after times of great tragedy, but detrimental to the growing stigma of people with mental illness.

According to an American Journal of Public Health article by Jonathan Metzl and Kenneth Macliesh, there is a bit of a contradiction between the public’s perception of the mentally ill and the statistics and literature of mental illness. The inconvenient fact for those blaming mass shootings on mental illness is that the vast majority of mental illnesses do not promote violent actions, and the vast majority of mentally ill people are nonviolent. This, of course, is a bit of a contradiction to what we see on the news, however. For the most part, those that commit horrible crimes such as mass shootings are often mentally ill. And, stripping aside politics, the fact that some of these people can legally get their hands on a deadly firearm is objective insanity. Most gun owners would agree. In fact, in researching for this essay, I interviewed Jonathan Vasquez, a retired United States Army veteran, a gun owner, and an unapologetic skeptic of gun control. As you can probably infer, we disagreed on most issues, including the politics behind raising the gun age, limiting magazine capacity, etc. However, when it came to mental health, we reached an agreement. Not only did Mr. Vasquez state that he would be in favor of background checks to anyone purchasing a gun, in order to ensure that they did not have a history of criminality or mental illness, but he also stated that he would be opposed to any proposed budget cuts to social programs that would uphold these background checks. This is something that most gun control advocates and gun owners can agree on. However, as stated before, it does come at a social cost to those who are mentally ill. That being said, it does also benefit these people as well. Keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill does not just ensure the safety of the public, it ensures their own safety as well. There are surely many solutions to the problem of mental illness in this country that are not being addressed, but a great first step is to ensure that these people do not hurt others or themselves. If we can decrease instances like this, we can remove some of the social stigma that comes along with mental illness.

But this, of course has not been studied because in the United States, at least, it has not been tried. And why should gun control ideas be tried in the United States? Well, evidence has it that they work in other countries. Take Australia, for example. Famous for kangaroos, terrifying spiders, and no mass shootings since 1996. According to a British Medical Journal article, Australia’s sweeping gun reform, which eliminated semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns from civilian possession, was incredibly successful in reducing gun deaths nationwide. Since these gun reforms, an average of 0.04 people per 100,000 have died of total firearm deaths, 0.007 per 100,000 have died of firearm suicides, and 0.15 per 100,000 have died of firearm homicides. Essentially, the argument of “gun control doesn’t work” is definitely false, because it does in other countries around the world. Because of this fact, this should not be the question. The question shouldn’t be whether or not we institute more strict gun control laws in the United States, but what those laws should be, and to what extent they should be implemented.

As I’ve stated before in this essay, there is nothing that can be implemented legislatively that will totally eliminate gun deaths. There will always be people out there willing to make bad decisions and harm others for stupid reasons. But they are the exception, not the rule. Just as the strawman neo-liberal communist and the alt-right fascist are the exception and not the rule. Most people can agree that we can come to a compromise on what to do about guns in this country. Most people can reason that something must be done to keep people safe, to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill, and to achieve some sort of progress that benefits us all. And I suggest that if our leaders aren’t willing to have that conversation and come to that compromise, we take charge as a people and do it ourselves. I suggest that we come together as a nation and talk about what would benefit all of us rather than squabbling among our own arbitrary political groups. I suggest we make that choice, and I suggest we make it now. Because if not, more blood will be spilled on our watch. More will die and we will only be able to blame ourselves. If there was ever a time for us to live up to what we can and should be, it’s now.

 Works Cited

Markoff, Steven C. “Gun Control - ProCon.org.” Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted in the United States?, 7 Aug. 2017, gun-control.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001964.

H, Victor. “Gun Control in the United States.” OMICS International, OMICS International, 11 June 2016, www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gun-control-in-the-united-states-2332-0761-1000206.

php?aid=74881.

McGinty, Emma, et al. “Effects of News Media Messages About Mass Shootings on Attitudes

Toward Persons With Serious Mental Illness and Public Support for Gun Control Policies.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 1 May 2013, ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13010014.

Chapman, et al. “Australia's 1996 Gun Law Reforms: Faster Falls in Firearm Deaths, Firearm Suicides, and a Decade without Mass Shootings.” Injury Prevention, BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 1 Dec. 2006, injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.

Metzel, Jonathan, and Kenneth MacLeish. “Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of

American Firearms.” Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms | AJPH | Vol. 105 Issue 2, 12 Dec. 2014, ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302242.

Lopez, German. “The Research Is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives.” Vox, Vox, 4 Oct. 2017, www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post.

West, Geoff. “Gun Rights vs Gun Control.” OpenSecrets, Feb. 2018, www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/guns.

Hawkins, Awr. “When Gun Control Fails.” NRA-ILA, 21 July 2017, www.nraila.org/articles/20170721/when-gun-control-fails.

#gun control #deception #bias