Thursday, December 20, 2007

Afrochat.net

I've found a new forum to chat on: Afrochat.net

It's a decidedly afrocentric/africentric chat. It has some 'old heads' on it. You know, people all wrapped up in their ideology an ready to spew it on everyone. . . wait, that's me!

I just posted something outlining criteria for adulthood, hoping to generate some good responses about the topic, when all-of-a-sudden out of nowhere one guy tries to invalidate everything i say, and another pigeonholes me! Sure, i was wide-open for it because i'm new and ready for a fight, but they don't know just who i am!

I can't begin to tell you just how excited i am. all the chat/groups i was a part of that had this kind of conversation have been long gone. And i'm soo excited to be back in the africentric conversation, even though i'm now ALSO a capitalist.
Bookmark and Share

New outlet for my rantings

I've found a new forum to chat on. Afrochat.net

It's a decidedly afrocentric/africentric chat. It has some 'old heads' on it. You know, people all wrapped up in their ideology an ready to spew it on everyone. . . wait, that's me!

I just posted something outlining criteria for adulthood, hoping to generate some good responses about the topic, when all-of-a-sudden out of nowhere one guy tries to invalidate everything i say, and another pigeonholes me! Sure, i was wide-open for it because i'm new and ready for a fight, but they don't know just who i am!

I can't begin to tell you just how excited i am. all the chat/groups i was a part of that had this kind of conversation have been long gone. And i'm soo excited to be back in the africentric conversation, even though i'm now ALSO a capitalist.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, December 17, 2007

a lesson in humility

So, i'm a teacher. i teach software programs to corporate and individual clients. And i think i'm hot shit.

I was at work today and another trainer came in and was turning in his evaluations. Because i teach the MS office, and they want high-quality training, the people that i train fill out either paper-form or web-based evaluations. So, this other trainer has been 'duping' me. He's been talking as if he's a terrible trainer and that he's not that effective. And i've been eating this story up.

So he's turning in his evals and looking through the scores. And as i watched, he was earning nines (why it isn't on a 10 point scale is beyond me) all over the place. Out of about ten evaluations that i went through (under his watchful eye) all of them except one rated him with all nines! The other one was straight eights . .. there's always one, i know. i should've seen that, he's been doing this for about 10 years, he's just new to this company.

So, i walk around like i'm the hottest thing since sliced bread, and i'm not! My scores are good, but i've been doing this for less than a year (my 'anniversary' is the 2nd of january) and my scores are in the 8.36 range ('effective is 8.47). So i've still got a little work to do.

Now, this is against the background of people walking out and telling me that this was a great class, and one student/client comparing me to one of the recent legendary trainers at my compay.

So, i'm going to eat crow and sharpen up on my P's and Q's to become a better trainer. Apparently at national conferences, some of the best trainers get to 'walk the stage' but they've gotta be top notched. I'll be there if i can get my big ego out of the way.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, December 10, 2007

hilarious on books

I was reading the book that i mentioned the other day, and there is a section in it on understanding time and space. And he was noting how people think about different categories . . . and was remarking (yeah, i'll get to it) a about cognitive psychologist roger shepard who obsreved
that "people often wish that they had an office with additional space, so they would have more places to put their books. But they never wish they had an office with additional dimensions, so they would have more ways to arrange their books.

I was giggling at the trolley stop
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 09, 2007

The stuff of thought

I was about to say that i'm the only person who would read a chapter of a book discussing the ins-and-outs of the difference between the words cut, hit and break . . . but there's the guy that wrote the book! The Stuff of Though by Steve Pinker. It's a great read so far.

The premise of his book is that we can see into the functioning of the human mind through language. As a linguist, he is looking at language to tell us about how the mind works and operates. so far it is a very interesting read. Not only do i find him to be an entertaining writer, i like the subject: words (did i mention that for like four months of my life i would go to bed late reading the thesaurus?)

Basically our thoughts are comprised of basic ideas, and words reflect combinations of these ideas.
The difference between 'hit', 'cut' and 'break' are that they do or don't include more elementary concepts like motion, contact, effects etc.

I don't know what the rest of the book is about, but i'm waiting to get to the chapter about metaphors, because Pinker takes to task one of my other favorite authors George Lakoff, who is the 'metaphor man' in the world of linguistics, and more recently in the world of political spin. look him up.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 06, 2007

the dating game divorced

I was thinking about dating the other day. I'm head-over heels into a relationship and coming down the final stretch of my singlehood and i was thinking about the whole 'dating world' and 'courting world' (which are vastly different arenas). A few years ago i read a tome of a book called "The Kaballah of the Soul" by leonora leet and was struck by one of her analyses (analysis plural, the blog won't say it's spelled right). Her analysis was that the fundamental exchange between man and woman is power for beauty. That's why the bad-boys get the hot chicks, they've got social power. Now, geeks, with economic power are starting to get play - my analysis anyway.

So in "the game" of dating, there is an underlying ethic of man conquers woman. And whatever man conquers the most women 'wins'. But there is a white stripe down the back of that skunk that goes counter, but not many people have been analyzing and talking about. What i'm talking about is the heroism of a faithful man.

Lots of people will agree that people become attractive when they're taken. First and foremost there's someone's stamp of approval that they're worth dealing with. Secondly, there's the 'i want what i can't have' line of thinking. Probably a couple other lines of thinking two. Regardless of how many lines of thinking, there's almost a social movement to destroy relationships. But nobody acknowledges the heroism, bravery, integrity and stick-to-it-ness that it takes to remain faithful during the onslaught (overt and covert) of flirting, propositions and sometimes downright molestations.

So when i say the dating game 'divorced', i mean that i'm distinguishing two ways to win it. One is to have sex with as many people as possible (and of course neither get caught nor infected) and the other way is to enter into a long-term relationship and remain faithful.

The 'problem' is that people don't see these as completely separate games with completely different rule sets. Therefore they oscillate between them, so they'll be 'single and loving it' for a while then switch to 'coupled and loving it' and rotate between the two games. The problem is that marriage isn't explicitly interpreted in terms of a 'winner' being able to be faithful.

The most important thing to note in this line of thinking is that 'winning' at marriage doesn't mean that you marry a faithful partner. Winning at the sex game in marriage means that you stay faithful. And if the other person doesn't cut it, you don't loose, they do.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

healthcare 'rights'

I hate the democratic party-line of 'universal healthcare' as if healthcare is a 'right'. the phrase 'healthcare rights' or 'a right to healthcare' is about as compatible as the phrase 'purple ideas'. The adjective purple can't be applied to idea because ideas have no form or substance. The word right can't be applied to healthcare because it isn't a basic human freedom.

A right, properly interpreted, is a idea that is designed to protect a person from others infringing on a basic human freedom, something that you could do when nobody was around. There is a 'right to bear arms' and a 'right to free speech' because you can do those in isolation. There's no real 'right' to vote, cuz when you're alone you're the dictatorship.

When the founders of this country argued about 'rights' they were aimed at restricting governmental and other people infringing on your ability to do things. You can't assert a 'right to healthcare' because it isn't something that other people can infringe upon.

I doubt that George Lakoff and people in his camp will agree with this, but they will recognize the veracity of my paltry claim.

Besides, healthcare is a scam. Health insurance is a different story. The problem is that we roll them into the same thing. Medical insurance is something that you get to insure yourself against something tragic like catastrophes, like car insurance and home-owners insurance. Healthcare is a service that you buy on a regular basis. It's kinda like getting a car tune-up. Suppose you get tune-ups often, so you would have volume discounting with a healthcare service. However, health insurance and healthcare are packaged together, so the volume discount of preventative tune-ups and medicine isn't very apparent either in pricing or in performance (for both your body and your car).

I would go further into the metaphor, but i figure that's either profound enough or total bs, either way it's an entertaining way to think about it.

So, how to solve the healthcare crisis? The first thing is to split up medical insurance and healthcare service bundling. Do that and you'll start to see some movement.
Bookmark and Share