(inspired by strip #42)
(inspired by strip #15)
(inspired by strip #51)
(inspired by strip #39)
(inspired by strip #36)
(not inspired by any strip, just a random idea I had)
(just a simple Abby and Norma logo).
Any ideas will be welcome.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Abby and Norma Latest News!!
Abby and Norma is now on a new website, with automatic updating so that I will never, ever be late in posting a strip again! Also, there is now an Abby and Norma Merchandise Page, with various shirts, hats, mugs and bags bearing these pictures:
(inspired by strip #42)
(inspired by strip #15)
(inspired by strip #51)
(inspired by strip #39)
(inspired by strip #36)
(not inspired by any strip, just a random idea I had)
(just a simple Abby and Norma logo).
Any ideas will be welcome.
(inspired by strip #42)
(inspired by strip #15)
(inspired by strip #51)
(inspired by strip #39)
(inspired by strip #36)
(not inspired by any strip, just a random idea I had)
(just a simple Abby and Norma logo).
Any ideas will be welcome.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Four weeks of bad luck
I'm posting while lying on my back with the laptop on my stomach, which is a very awkward typing position, so this may not be a long post.
Week before the week before last: busy helping a friend move out of her house and clean up/recycle/ebay a basement full of computer paraphernalia that her husband left her and refused to help get rid of when he divorced her.
Week before last: busy moving our own stuff (and leftover computer crap from helping this friend) into our new townhouse.
Last week: on vacation at Lake Superior. Husband broke his leg on second day of trip. Spent most of it in cabin taking care of bedridden husband. We will be a single-income family until he recovers in 4-6 weeks.
This week: busy unboxing and putting away stuff in new townhouse, until my back gave out last night. Today we are a no-income family. Hope I can go back to work tomorrow.
You see why I have been so quiet lately?
Week before the week before last: busy helping a friend move out of her house and clean up/recycle/ebay a basement full of computer paraphernalia that her husband left her and refused to help get rid of when he divorced her.
Week before last: busy moving our own stuff (and leftover computer crap from helping this friend) into our new townhouse.
Last week: on vacation at Lake Superior. Husband broke his leg on second day of trip. Spent most of it in cabin taking care of bedridden husband. We will be a single-income family until he recovers in 4-6 weeks.
This week: busy unboxing and putting away stuff in new townhouse, until my back gave out last night. Today we are a no-income family. Hope I can go back to work tomorrow.
You see why I have been so quiet lately?
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Ah, college days... and grade school days...
I'm reminiscing about college a bit today.
I took an education class once in college, more just to pass the time than because I was interested in learning about education. But there was some interesting stuff there... some of which just made me laugh at how silly people can be.
One article talked about a project in which hundreds of children were encouraged to write poems. A couple paragraphs of it were devoted to talking about a child whose poems were "disturbing"... specifically, that he wrote about "shooting his teachers, and killing his mother and flushing her head down the toilet." He was removed from the class and put in counseling.
Now, I don't know if his teachers had ever been children. I know I was a child once, and I remember it very well, and I remember that when I was a child, at least half of the other children I knew sang some variation of a song that went:
"Joy to the world, [insert name of victim here] is dead.
What happened to her head?
I took it from her body
And flushed it down the potty
And around and around it goes..."
And they also sang some variation of a song that went:
"On top of spaghetti, all covered with cheese,
I shot my poor teacher with a 40 MC
Thirty years later he rose from the dead
And I took my bazooka and blew off his head."
I strongly suspect that the poems written by the boy in the article were these ones, or something like them, and that the reason he wrote them was because he had heard them from other children. So he shouldn't have gotten in trouble for "disturbing writing"-- he should have gotten in trouble for freaking plagiarism.
Not that I approve of those songs, mind you. They're so unrealistic. You can't flush someone's head down a toilet. The only toilets that a human head would fit down are outhouses and porta-potties, and those don't flush.
But I digress...
I took an education class once in college, more just to pass the time than because I was interested in learning about education. But there was some interesting stuff there... some of which just made me laugh at how silly people can be.
One article talked about a project in which hundreds of children were encouraged to write poems. A couple paragraphs of it were devoted to talking about a child whose poems were "disturbing"... specifically, that he wrote about "shooting his teachers, and killing his mother and flushing her head down the toilet." He was removed from the class and put in counseling.
Now, I don't know if his teachers had ever been children. I know I was a child once, and I remember it very well, and I remember that when I was a child, at least half of the other children I knew sang some variation of a song that went:
"Joy to the world, [insert name of victim here] is dead.
What happened to her head?
I took it from her body
And flushed it down the potty
And around and around it goes..."
And they also sang some variation of a song that went:
"On top of spaghetti, all covered with cheese,
I shot my poor teacher with a 40 MC
Thirty years later he rose from the dead
And I took my bazooka and blew off his head."
I strongly suspect that the poems written by the boy in the article were these ones, or something like them, and that the reason he wrote them was because he had heard them from other children. So he shouldn't have gotten in trouble for "disturbing writing"-- he should have gotten in trouble for freaking plagiarism.
Not that I approve of those songs, mind you. They're so unrealistic. You can't flush someone's head down a toilet. The only toilets that a human head would fit down are outhouses and porta-potties, and those don't flush.
But I digress...
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
long essay on random topic
There's a lot of talk about how many of our personality traits come from genes, and there's a lot of dispute over it, especially when the question comes up of whether, and how strongly, any of these traits are connected to gender or race. Basically, I believe that many of our behaviors are genetic-- but also that many people take the idea of genetic traits too far, and that we have to recognize the dangers that come with this kind of thought.
First of all, I do believe that many of the personality traits we associate with gender are genetic, and that there is a basic tendency for these traits to follow the genders we expect them to follow. After all, practically every animal species that has genders exhibits behavior differences between them-- differences that often resemble the gender differences we see in humans-- and nobody doubts that they are genetic when found in animals. We share over half our genes with most animals; why should we think that we're the only species that doesn't have any inherent instincts (or at least any that tend to follow the gender lines)?
However-- and this is a big "however"-- we must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that such genetic traits always, or even almost always, follow the gender lines. They do not. They are tendencies, no more. Within the human species there is enormous variation in what instincts we experience, and also in whether we choose to act on our instincts. For any generalization describing human behavior, there are so many exceptions that the rule is barely any use.
When I was little, I was obsessed with frilly dresses, princesses, ballerinas and jewelry, and my brother was obsessed with cars, tanks, submarines, airplanes and guns. No one knew where this came from. Our parents had made an enormous effort to raise both of us in a gender-neutral environment, encouraging both of us equally to play with traditionally "feminine" toys, traditionally "masculine" toys, and gender-neutral toys. We couldn't have learned traditional gender roles from our parents' example; they were as far from the traditional gender roles as any parents can be. We had barely any friends, and mostly avoided our peers; I doubt we learned anything from them. We were isolated from almost everything outside the family. We didn't even watch TV. And at that age, we saw our mother as the ultimate authority on everything, and she said gender didn't matter, so we wouldn't have listened to anyone who said otherwise.
And yet, somehow, we had developed stereotypical masculine and feminine interests. The only explanation seems to be that it was an inherent instinct.
Yet it's also clear that such inherent instincts do not always appear in the genders they're expected from. At the same time that I was obsessed with princesses and ballerinas, I also played with worms and centipedes in the backyard. At the same time that he was fascinated with war machines, my brother also devotedly loved kittens and puppies.
And of course, time and time again throughout history, a mother has brought her daughter up with nothing but dolls and tea sets to play with, forbidden her to associate with anyone who went against gender expectations, and still found the girl becoming a "tomboy," developing interests in traditionally masculine activities. Such a girl's interests must be genetic-- there's no place else they could come from-- and yet they do not follow our expectations of where such a genetic instinct would appear.
There are similar issues with race. I believe it is quite possible that there are some genetic behavioral tendencies associated with race-- after all, evolution has caused different races to have many different physical characteristics depending on what is useful for survival in the environment where each race originally developed. It's not too much of a stretch beyond that to suppose that we might also have evolved different genetic leanings toward behaviors that were beneficial in our ancestors' original habitats.
However, this idea poses the same dangers as the thought of gender-related genetic tendencies. First, it sometimes leads people to believe that some races are genetically "inferior" to others. Obviously, this is not true. There would never have been any reason for a race to evolve a behavior that was inherently harmful. The only traits that could have been evolved are ones that are helpful in certain environments.
For instance, it's been shown that members of cultures that live in cold climates tend to be more introverted, while members of cultures that live in warm climates tend to be more extroverted. It's quite possible that this is just cultural, but I also wouldn't be surprised if there were some genetic factor. After all, the ability to enjoy being alone is very useful in an environment where snow and cold may often prevent you from going out and spending time with people... while the ability to enjoy other people's company is useful in an environment where warm weather brings everyone outside most of the time.
In contrast, I do not believe that there is anything genetic behind the fact that some races in the United States have higher crime rates than others. There would be no reason to evolve a tendency toward crime. The most likely explanation is that such tendencies come from the economic situations that some races are forced into.
And again, as in the case of gender, it is dangerous to start making assumptions about people based on the idea that there are genetic behavior traits linked to race. It is possible that there are such links, but if so, they are weak links; remember that we haven't even found proof of them yet. And even the most reliable generalizations about human beings have enough exceptions to get you in trouble if you use them as your basis for understanding people.
Using generalizations may increase your chances of guessing correctly about people's personalities, but it's better not to guess at all. There will always be times when your generalizations will cause you to guess wrong and offend someone, and those times will cause a lot more problems than the times when you start out with no assumption at all.
For instance, I would be very upset if everybody looked at me and said, "She's a woman, therefore she probably has a strong maternal instinct-- let's all ask her to baby-sit our kids." They would be wrong. Most women (and most men, for that matter) do have some parental feelings, but I'm different. I panic if I have to look after a child, and I'd be offended if people assumed otherwise just because of my gender. Similarly, I'd be very upset if people looked at me and said, "She's part Norwegian, and Norway is a cold place; therefore she's probably a loner. She'll be happier if we all avoid her and don't talk to her." I am introverted, but that doesn't mean I want everyone to ignore me... and I certainly don't want anyone to make assumptions about me based on my ethnicity.
So, the conclusion I've come to is that each race or gender may carry a somewhat increased likelihood of having certain genetic behavior traits, but even if that's true, it's irrelevant to the question of what's the moral way to treat people. Such traits, if they exist, are not universal or even close to universal within the given gender or race. The best thing we can do for society is to act as if there were no connection between behavior traits and race or gender... and simply avoid making assumptions about people until we get to know them.
First of all, I do believe that many of the personality traits we associate with gender are genetic, and that there is a basic tendency for these traits to follow the genders we expect them to follow. After all, practically every animal species that has genders exhibits behavior differences between them-- differences that often resemble the gender differences we see in humans-- and nobody doubts that they are genetic when found in animals. We share over half our genes with most animals; why should we think that we're the only species that doesn't have any inherent instincts (or at least any that tend to follow the gender lines)?
However-- and this is a big "however"-- we must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that such genetic traits always, or even almost always, follow the gender lines. They do not. They are tendencies, no more. Within the human species there is enormous variation in what instincts we experience, and also in whether we choose to act on our instincts. For any generalization describing human behavior, there are so many exceptions that the rule is barely any use.
When I was little, I was obsessed with frilly dresses, princesses, ballerinas and jewelry, and my brother was obsessed with cars, tanks, submarines, airplanes and guns. No one knew where this came from. Our parents had made an enormous effort to raise both of us in a gender-neutral environment, encouraging both of us equally to play with traditionally "feminine" toys, traditionally "masculine" toys, and gender-neutral toys. We couldn't have learned traditional gender roles from our parents' example; they were as far from the traditional gender roles as any parents can be. We had barely any friends, and mostly avoided our peers; I doubt we learned anything from them. We were isolated from almost everything outside the family. We didn't even watch TV. And at that age, we saw our mother as the ultimate authority on everything, and she said gender didn't matter, so we wouldn't have listened to anyone who said otherwise.
And yet, somehow, we had developed stereotypical masculine and feminine interests. The only explanation seems to be that it was an inherent instinct.
Yet it's also clear that such inherent instincts do not always appear in the genders they're expected from. At the same time that I was obsessed with princesses and ballerinas, I also played with worms and centipedes in the backyard. At the same time that he was fascinated with war machines, my brother also devotedly loved kittens and puppies.
And of course, time and time again throughout history, a mother has brought her daughter up with nothing but dolls and tea sets to play with, forbidden her to associate with anyone who went against gender expectations, and still found the girl becoming a "tomboy," developing interests in traditionally masculine activities. Such a girl's interests must be genetic-- there's no place else they could come from-- and yet they do not follow our expectations of where such a genetic instinct would appear.
There are similar issues with race. I believe it is quite possible that there are some genetic behavioral tendencies associated with race-- after all, evolution has caused different races to have many different physical characteristics depending on what is useful for survival in the environment where each race originally developed. It's not too much of a stretch beyond that to suppose that we might also have evolved different genetic leanings toward behaviors that were beneficial in our ancestors' original habitats.
However, this idea poses the same dangers as the thought of gender-related genetic tendencies. First, it sometimes leads people to believe that some races are genetically "inferior" to others. Obviously, this is not true. There would never have been any reason for a race to evolve a behavior that was inherently harmful. The only traits that could have been evolved are ones that are helpful in certain environments.
For instance, it's been shown that members of cultures that live in cold climates tend to be more introverted, while members of cultures that live in warm climates tend to be more extroverted. It's quite possible that this is just cultural, but I also wouldn't be surprised if there were some genetic factor. After all, the ability to enjoy being alone is very useful in an environment where snow and cold may often prevent you from going out and spending time with people... while the ability to enjoy other people's company is useful in an environment where warm weather brings everyone outside most of the time.
In contrast, I do not believe that there is anything genetic behind the fact that some races in the United States have higher crime rates than others. There would be no reason to evolve a tendency toward crime. The most likely explanation is that such tendencies come from the economic situations that some races are forced into.
And again, as in the case of gender, it is dangerous to start making assumptions about people based on the idea that there are genetic behavior traits linked to race. It is possible that there are such links, but if so, they are weak links; remember that we haven't even found proof of them yet. And even the most reliable generalizations about human beings have enough exceptions to get you in trouble if you use them as your basis for understanding people.
Using generalizations may increase your chances of guessing correctly about people's personalities, but it's better not to guess at all. There will always be times when your generalizations will cause you to guess wrong and offend someone, and those times will cause a lot more problems than the times when you start out with no assumption at all.
For instance, I would be very upset if everybody looked at me and said, "She's a woman, therefore she probably has a strong maternal instinct-- let's all ask her to baby-sit our kids." They would be wrong. Most women (and most men, for that matter) do have some parental feelings, but I'm different. I panic if I have to look after a child, and I'd be offended if people assumed otherwise just because of my gender. Similarly, I'd be very upset if people looked at me and said, "She's part Norwegian, and Norway is a cold place; therefore she's probably a loner. She'll be happier if we all avoid her and don't talk to her." I am introverted, but that doesn't mean I want everyone to ignore me... and I certainly don't want anyone to make assumptions about me based on my ethnicity.
So, the conclusion I've come to is that each race or gender may carry a somewhat increased likelihood of having certain genetic behavior traits, but even if that's true, it's irrelevant to the question of what's the moral way to treat people. Such traits, if they exist, are not universal or even close to universal within the given gender or race. The best thing we can do for society is to act as if there were no connection between behavior traits and race or gender... and simply avoid making assumptions about people until we get to know them.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Domain name etc.
I know I haven't been posting on this blog every week as I said I would-- that's partly because I'm reconsidering whether some of the things I was going to post are too controversial, and also whether they may be boring.
In any case, I'd like to announce that I've bought the domain name www.abbyandnorma.com, which now redirects to my comic page. The comic is getting more and more hits, and I wanted to be sure I got that domain before anyone else did.
Which may mean I'm smarter than the government, which didn't even think of buying the domain names "whitehouse.com" and "whitehouse.org" until they'd already been bought by a porn site and an anti-Bush parody site.
This is why I don't trust any decisions the government makes regarding computers. Every government is made up mainly of old men who have spent their whole lives in careers almost completely unrelated to technology-- so expecting them to be tech-savvy is expecting too much.
In any case, I'd like to announce that I've bought the domain name www.abbyandnorma.com, which now redirects to my comic page. The comic is getting more and more hits, and I wanted to be sure I got that domain before anyone else did.
Which may mean I'm smarter than the government, which didn't even think of buying the domain names "whitehouse.com" and "whitehouse.org" until they'd already been bought by a porn site and an anti-Bush parody site.
This is why I don't trust any decisions the government makes regarding computers. Every government is made up mainly of old men who have spent their whole lives in careers almost completely unrelated to technology-- so expecting them to be tech-savvy is expecting too much.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
What. The.
Someone just found my website by searching for "how to fix baby's pointy ear."
Obviously without the quotes, because that sentence is not on my website. I may have used the words "how to," "fix" and "baby" a few times, but my only reference to pointy ears was about a costume piece I made that you can wear in order to look as if you have pointy ears.
So, fat lot of help they got for Poor Pointy-Eared Baby. I hope they buy one of my pointy ear headbands. That'll at least make Baby look like he has two MATCHING pointy ears.
Obviously without the quotes, because that sentence is not on my website. I may have used the words "how to," "fix" and "baby" a few times, but my only reference to pointy ears was about a costume piece I made that you can wear in order to look as if you have pointy ears.
So, fat lot of help they got for Poor Pointy-Eared Baby. I hope they buy one of my pointy ear headbands. That'll at least make Baby look like he has two MATCHING pointy ears.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
I'm safe
Those of you who know that I live in Minneapolis, don't worry about me. We were on our way home when the Mississippi River bridge fell down, but we weren't on that route, although it was one of the routes we could have taken. (When the collapse happened, there were workers on the bridge repairing the surface, and some other construction going on nearby... and we try to avoid routes that are under construction, because of the traffic.)
For what it's worth, we don't think it was sabotage. My husband, who's into physics and chemistry, thinks that it could've been caused by a malfunction of the heater that they were using in repairing the bridge surface... and the reason it collapsed during rush hour instead of some quieter time is probably because of all the extra weight of cars on the bridge.
For what it's worth, we don't think it was sabotage. My husband, who's into physics and chemistry, thinks that it could've been caused by a malfunction of the heater that they were using in repairing the bridge surface... and the reason it collapsed during rush hour instead of some quieter time is probably because of all the extra weight of cars on the bridge.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Abby and Norma's first mention on *someone else's website*!
I'm all excited today because I found out that Abby and Norma was mentioned on ITworld.com! In fact, it was the Geek Comic of the Week! Still is, as of the time of this writing. Awesome! I had put a few Project Wonderful ads for it on Dinosaur Comics and Dr. McNinja... and I guess the publicity is paying off.
By the way, I highly recommend Project Wonderful to any ordinary person trying to get visitors to a website. I got three days of ads on Dinosaur Comics and one day of ads on Dr. McNinja for less than ten dollars. The genius of their system is that they charge by the day, not by clicks or page impressions, so you can't get screwed by someone who decides to click on your ad eighty times. If you've decided you don't want to get charged more than ten bucks, you won't get charged more than ten bucks. (Not so great if you're the person selling ad space... but actually, in my case, it would be better than Google Ads, which have gotten me only 5 clicks and $3.34 in the several months and thousands of page views that they've been on my website.)
By the way, I highly recommend Project Wonderful to any ordinary person trying to get visitors to a website. I got three days of ads on Dinosaur Comics and one day of ads on Dr. McNinja for less than ten dollars. The genius of their system is that they charge by the day, not by clicks or page impressions, so you can't get screwed by someone who decides to click on your ad eighty times. If you've decided you don't want to get charged more than ten bucks, you won't get charged more than ten bucks. (Not so great if you're the person selling ad space... but actually, in my case, it would be better than Google Ads, which have gotten me only 5 clicks and $3.34 in the several months and thousands of page views that they've been on my website.)
No faith in the existence of faith
If "faith" is defined as "believing something without evidence," then there is no such thing as faith.
Now, when I say "evidence," I don't mean "absolute proof." It's impossible to have absolute proof of anything. Even if you see something with your own eyes, you could just be hallucinating. Even if the answer to a mathematical problem makes perfect sense to you, that might be because of some deformity in your brain. There are plenty of things that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is nothing that can be proven beyond all doubt.
So if someone says that we don't have absolute proof of the theory of evolution, for example... well, that's technically true, but meaningless, since we also don't have absolute proof that there are any planets besides Earth, or that light comes from the sun, or that fairies don't exist.
It's pointless to define evidence as absolute proof. The most that evidence can be is "a piece of information that convinces you that something is likely to be true." And nobody can believe something without any evidence at all. It's just that some people need more evidence than others.
For example, I believe that evolution happened-- because there is a lot of scientific evidence that convinces me that evolution is more likely than the alternative (since the alternative is either "Thousands of scientists are conspiring to fake their results" or "God faked all the fossil evidence just to mess with our minds.")
But some people hold their beliefs based on lines of reasoning like the following:
A) "My parents taught this to me, and I believe my parents are always right about things like this, therefore I will believe it."
Or:
B) "I believe that God is good, and I like X and dislike Y, therefore I believe that God also likes X and dislikes Y, because otherwise God wouldn't be good in my opinion."
Most religious beliefs are held based on these two logical processes. They are not very strong lines of reasoning, but they are also not faith. They are evidence, in the sense of "a piece of information that convinces a person that something is likely to be true." Starting with pieces of information like "My parents believe this" or "God is good and I think that these things are good," people draw a line of logical reasoning and reach a religious belief.
The reason it's impossible to have blind faith is because there are thousands of religions in the world. If people could have faith in a religion without any concrete proof or logical argument in favor of it, then they would believe every religion that exists... and since religions contradict each other, this would necessitate a lot of doublethink.
So it doesn't happen that way. In reality, people believe in their religions either because they've been brought up in those religions, or because the teachings of those religions make sense to them... in other words, arguments A and B as described above.
Which are a form of evidence, as I've shown. So it makes no sense for a proselytizer to tell me that I just need to have faith and believe what he says without evidence of any kind. A dozen other proselytizers for different religions are telling me the same thing-- so if I didn't need any evidence in order to believe something, then how could I choose which one to listen to? Obviously, when multiple people are trying to convince me of different things, I have to choose who to believe based on who has the best evidence. And right now, the theory of evolution has the best evidence for me.
Now, when I say "evidence," I don't mean "absolute proof." It's impossible to have absolute proof of anything. Even if you see something with your own eyes, you could just be hallucinating. Even if the answer to a mathematical problem makes perfect sense to you, that might be because of some deformity in your brain. There are plenty of things that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is nothing that can be proven beyond all doubt.
So if someone says that we don't have absolute proof of the theory of evolution, for example... well, that's technically true, but meaningless, since we also don't have absolute proof that there are any planets besides Earth, or that light comes from the sun, or that fairies don't exist.
It's pointless to define evidence as absolute proof. The most that evidence can be is "a piece of information that convinces you that something is likely to be true." And nobody can believe something without any evidence at all. It's just that some people need more evidence than others.
For example, I believe that evolution happened-- because there is a lot of scientific evidence that convinces me that evolution is more likely than the alternative (since the alternative is either "Thousands of scientists are conspiring to fake their results" or "God faked all the fossil evidence just to mess with our minds.")
But some people hold their beliefs based on lines of reasoning like the following:
A) "My parents taught this to me, and I believe my parents are always right about things like this, therefore I will believe it."
Or:
B) "I believe that God is good, and I like X and dislike Y, therefore I believe that God also likes X and dislikes Y, because otherwise God wouldn't be good in my opinion."
Most religious beliefs are held based on these two logical processes. They are not very strong lines of reasoning, but they are also not faith. They are evidence, in the sense of "a piece of information that convinces a person that something is likely to be true." Starting with pieces of information like "My parents believe this" or "God is good and I think that these things are good," people draw a line of logical reasoning and reach a religious belief.
The reason it's impossible to have blind faith is because there are thousands of religions in the world. If people could have faith in a religion without any concrete proof or logical argument in favor of it, then they would believe every religion that exists... and since religions contradict each other, this would necessitate a lot of doublethink.
So it doesn't happen that way. In reality, people believe in their religions either because they've been brought up in those religions, or because the teachings of those religions make sense to them... in other words, arguments A and B as described above.
Which are a form of evidence, as I've shown. So it makes no sense for a proselytizer to tell me that I just need to have faith and believe what he says without evidence of any kind. A dozen other proselytizers for different religions are telling me the same thing-- so if I didn't need any evidence in order to believe something, then how could I choose which one to listen to? Obviously, when multiple people are trying to convince me of different things, I have to choose who to believe based on who has the best evidence. And right now, the theory of evolution has the best evidence for me.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
There's always a reason... but not in real life
Have you ever noticed that everything always happens for a reason in fiction?
I don't mean that everything has a cause, or that everything is connected to everything else in small, hard-to-detect ways-- those things are true in real life, too. What I mean is that whenever something, no matter how small, happens in a work of fiction, it always seems to be connected to the main events of the story in an important, "meaningful" way.
For example, if a fictional character has a slip of the tongue, saying something other than what he or she meant to say, it can mean one of three things:
1. It's a Freudian slip, and it gives us a glimpse into what was on the character's mind.
Or:
2. It shows that the character is nervous or stressed, and therefore making mistakes in speech because of distraction.
Or:
3. It's part of character development, indicating that the character is "the type of person" who would make such a mistake-- which, in stories, always seems to mean a clumsy, bumbling type of character.
Of course, in real life, we frequently see dexterous, alert individuals in relaxed, non-stressful situations having little slips of the tongue that cannot possibly be interpreted as windows into their psyches. But those mistakes are completely irrelevant to the "important" events of these people's lives-- and so, if the events of their lives were made into a fictionalized story, those slips of the tongue would undoubtedly be left out. Everything in a novel or short story has to be relevant to the plot, or else readers start asking, "Why is this even in here?"
This is one of the things that annoy me about fiction. In real life, not every tiny little event is relevant to the things we consider important. Connected, yes, in some tiny way-- but not connected in the overt ways we always seem to see in fiction. Which means that fiction-- or at least the vast majority of fiction-- is unrealistic.
I'm guilty of doing this in my own fiction, too, if only because I'm afraid of readers getting confused about why I put some particular detail into the story. There always has to be a "why." If any author ever wrote a realistic story-- a story in which at least 70% of the events were unrelated to the plot in any vital way-- people would not understand it. They would look at 70% of the paragraphs and ask, "Why is this even here? It's not relevant." In fact, the same would happen with a story where only 10% of the paragraphs were irrelevant. If there's even one sentence in a story that's not connected to the plot, then someone, somewhere, is going to criticize it.
So all the characters have to speak perfectly, unless they are nervous, clumsy, or thinking about another subject. No sight, sound or event can be described unless it is useful in building character, setting or plot. How can people say that this is the right way to write a story, and yet still say that fiction should be realistic?
I don't mean that everything has a cause, or that everything is connected to everything else in small, hard-to-detect ways-- those things are true in real life, too. What I mean is that whenever something, no matter how small, happens in a work of fiction, it always seems to be connected to the main events of the story in an important, "meaningful" way.
For example, if a fictional character has a slip of the tongue, saying something other than what he or she meant to say, it can mean one of three things:
1. It's a Freudian slip, and it gives us a glimpse into what was on the character's mind.
Or:
2. It shows that the character is nervous or stressed, and therefore making mistakes in speech because of distraction.
Or:
3. It's part of character development, indicating that the character is "the type of person" who would make such a mistake-- which, in stories, always seems to mean a clumsy, bumbling type of character.
Of course, in real life, we frequently see dexterous, alert individuals in relaxed, non-stressful situations having little slips of the tongue that cannot possibly be interpreted as windows into their psyches. But those mistakes are completely irrelevant to the "important" events of these people's lives-- and so, if the events of their lives were made into a fictionalized story, those slips of the tongue would undoubtedly be left out. Everything in a novel or short story has to be relevant to the plot, or else readers start asking, "Why is this even in here?"
This is one of the things that annoy me about fiction. In real life, not every tiny little event is relevant to the things we consider important. Connected, yes, in some tiny way-- but not connected in the overt ways we always seem to see in fiction. Which means that fiction-- or at least the vast majority of fiction-- is unrealistic.
I'm guilty of doing this in my own fiction, too, if only because I'm afraid of readers getting confused about why I put some particular detail into the story. There always has to be a "why." If any author ever wrote a realistic story-- a story in which at least 70% of the events were unrelated to the plot in any vital way-- people would not understand it. They would look at 70% of the paragraphs and ask, "Why is this even here? It's not relevant." In fact, the same would happen with a story where only 10% of the paragraphs were irrelevant. If there's even one sentence in a story that's not connected to the plot, then someone, somewhere, is going to criticize it.
So all the characters have to speak perfectly, unless they are nervous, clumsy, or thinking about another subject. No sight, sound or event can be described unless it is useful in building character, setting or plot. How can people say that this is the right way to write a story, and yet still say that fiction should be realistic?
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
The insane conversations that my brain has with itself...
"Hi, my name is Roe. I am a salmon egg."
"Hi. My name is Wade. I am a guy wading into the water to take you out and cook you and eat you."
"But I don't want to be eaten! I want to hatch into a salmon and grow up."
"Sorry, that's not your choice. Life begins at hatching, it doesn't begin at spawning. Right now, it's your mother's choice."
"But my mother is dead. All salmon die right after they spawn."
"Oh. Well, then, I believe that this situation does not fall under the legislation established by the Supreme Court."
"Then this conversation has been meaningless. We have not reached any conclusion on any controversial topic. We have only established that salmon are different from humans."
"Well, then I guess it also pointless for me to eat you. Goodbye, Roe."
"Goodbye, Wade."
... goodbye, sanity...
"Hi. My name is Wade. I am a guy wading into the water to take you out and cook you and eat you."
"But I don't want to be eaten! I want to hatch into a salmon and grow up."
"Sorry, that's not your choice. Life begins at hatching, it doesn't begin at spawning. Right now, it's your mother's choice."
"But my mother is dead. All salmon die right after they spawn."
"Oh. Well, then, I believe that this situation does not fall under the legislation established by the Supreme Court."
"Then this conversation has been meaningless. We have not reached any conclusion on any controversial topic. We have only established that salmon are different from humans."
"Well, then I guess it also pointless for me to eat you. Goodbye, Roe."
"Goodbye, Wade."
... goodbye, sanity...
Monday, July 16, 2007
Spiders on potatoes are better than fruit flies
Sorry that Abby and Norma is late today. I was out late last night and had to work early this morning.
There is a Spider-Man/Mr. Potato Head crossover toy called Spider Spud. I am not even kidding. He shoots webs... what are they, a mutant version of those white tendrils that potatoes send out when you leave them in the drawer too long? And who does he fight? Doctor Okra and the Green Gherkin? Nobody knows. There is no comic book, no story, not even the usual plethora of accessories... just the potato and the web.
I got heat stroke today on the way home. Didn't pass out or anything, but I started feeling very sleepy as I approached my apartment building. Once inside, I drank ice water and put a cold cloth over my head, and now I'm a little shivery, but awake.
We bought Guitar Hero! It's bizarre that I enjoy it, seeing that I'm usually rather indifferent to both music and video games-- but I really do enjoy it. I guess there's no accounting for taste, even one's own.
There is a Spider-Man/Mr. Potato Head crossover toy called Spider Spud. I am not even kidding. He shoots webs... what are they, a mutant version of those white tendrils that potatoes send out when you leave them in the drawer too long? And who does he fight? Doctor Okra and the Green Gherkin? Nobody knows. There is no comic book, no story, not even the usual plethora of accessories... just the potato and the web.
I got heat stroke today on the way home. Didn't pass out or anything, but I started feeling very sleepy as I approached my apartment building. Once inside, I drank ice water and put a cold cloth over my head, and now I'm a little shivery, but awake.
We bought Guitar Hero! It's bizarre that I enjoy it, seeing that I'm usually rather indifferent to both music and video games-- but I really do enjoy it. I guess there's no accounting for taste, even one's own.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
IKEA bot again
I've managed to get my IKEA bot video to upload to YouTube with a better screencap picture showing up in Youtube search results. You basically just have to make sure the frame you want them to use is right in the middle of your video.
I improved a few other things too, but basically it's the same.
I improved a few other things too, but basically it's the same.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Random robotic reflections
Have you heard of the "Uncanny Valley"? It's a theory about people's reactions to robots. People can't relate to robots if they look nothing like humans, and we find them cute if they look slightly like humans... but the closer they get to looking exactly like humans, the more disturbing they will seem. They stop seeming like cartoonish representations of people, and start seeming like very strange-looking, creepy real people. It's a "valley" because we can theoretically come back out of it on the other side, when we get good enough at making humanoid robots that they can't be distinguished from humans at all.
I personally apply the same theory to animals. Humans tend to find animals very unattractive if they look completely and utterly unlike humans (for example, centipedes and worms and squids). We begin to find animals attractive when they look a little more like us (lions, gazelles, eagles). We admire their beauty, and compare beautiful people to them. Yet when animals get too close to looking like humans (monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas) we suddenly don't find them beautiful at all.
However, there is one important difference: Animals that look very much like humans do not disturb us in the same way as robots that look very much like humans. Most people do not get "creeped out" when they see a monkey or ape. We have a certain affection for them, even though we would never look at our spouses and say "You're so beautiful, you look like a gorilla." We might very well look at our children and say "You're so cute, you look like a monkey." The difference between "cute" and "beautiful" is important here; we might compare a monkey to a child, someone toward whom we feel parental affection-- but we do not compare it to someone with whom we could be "in love." This may be because monkeys and apes remind us of human children instead of human adults, with their more playful and simple nature.
And speaking of children, this is where I first found out about the "Uncanny Valley." It is graphic proof that a robot that looks like a human child is definitely not endearing in the same way as an animal that looks like a human child. Prepare to be creeped out.
I personally apply the same theory to animals. Humans tend to find animals very unattractive if they look completely and utterly unlike humans (for example, centipedes and worms and squids). We begin to find animals attractive when they look a little more like us (lions, gazelles, eagles). We admire their beauty, and compare beautiful people to them. Yet when animals get too close to looking like humans (monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas) we suddenly don't find them beautiful at all.
However, there is one important difference: Animals that look very much like humans do not disturb us in the same way as robots that look very much like humans. Most people do not get "creeped out" when they see a monkey or ape. We have a certain affection for them, even though we would never look at our spouses and say "You're so beautiful, you look like a gorilla." We might very well look at our children and say "You're so cute, you look like a monkey." The difference between "cute" and "beautiful" is important here; we might compare a monkey to a child, someone toward whom we feel parental affection-- but we do not compare it to someone with whom we could be "in love." This may be because monkeys and apes remind us of human children instead of human adults, with their more playful and simple nature.
And speaking of children, this is where I first found out about the "Uncanny Valley." It is graphic proof that a robot that looks like a human child is definitely not endearing in the same way as an animal that looks like a human child. Prepare to be creeped out.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
New logo!
After posting about the updates to my jewelry page, I started thinking about the logo a bit more, and realized it was awfully amateurish (I made it when I was in high school, for crying out loud).
And after thinking about it for a few minutes, I got inspired and made a new one. Take a look!
That's all for tonight. Really.
And after thinking about it for a few minutes, I got inspired and made a new one. Take a look!
That's all for tonight. Really.
Propaganda for me!
My Abby and Norma comic recently had a little three-strip story arc that I'm pretty proud of. It started here.
But there's bigger news: My jewelry page is now fully functional! It's undergone various changes, including the addition of Lake Superior jewelry with real silver wire, and geometric tube bead jewelry with real silver beads and freshwater pearls. Go take a look!
(Oh, and see if you can find the hidden "Enterprises" in the "Erika's Enterprises" logo. I made the logo years and years ago, and incorporated it into my jewelry page back when I first put it up on Geocities... but as far as I know, nobody's ever noticed the Enterprises. Probably only I would recognize a Constitution-class vessel seen from the front. I am such a Star Trek nerd...)
But there's bigger news: My jewelry page is now fully functional! It's undergone various changes, including the addition of Lake Superior jewelry with real silver wire, and geometric tube bead jewelry with real silver beads and freshwater pearls. Go take a look!
(Oh, and see if you can find the hidden "Enterprises" in the "Erika's Enterprises" logo. I made the logo years and years ago, and incorporated it into my jewelry page back when I first put it up on Geocities... but as far as I know, nobody's ever noticed the Enterprises. Probably only I would recognize a Constitution-class vessel seen from the front. I am such a Star Trek nerd...)
"Nice" signals
And here's my deep thoughtful post for the week. I posted a version of this as a comment on someone's LJ, and thought it would make a good post of its own.
Basically, there's a very fascinating and informative blog post here, by a person on the autism spectrum who talks about being misunderstood because of an inability to give off "I-am-nice signals." While the post is mainly talking about signals that can be given over the internet (nuances in the wording of a sentence, for example) it's also very much of an issue with signals in body language.
As a person with Asperger's Syndrome, I can certainly relate... but my problems are a bit different. Personally, I'm the kind of Aspie who only has mild difficulty with giving off and perceiving "nice" signals, and I guess I have actually become kind of dependent on perceiving them when dealing with non-autistics.
What I mean is that non-autistics (and many autistics) often say things they don't mean (like "I want to kill him")... but when non-autistics say these things, they will give off fewer "nice" signals depending on how angry they are. So, you often can't tell what people mean by their words (usually the person who says "I want to kill him" doesn't really want to kill anyone)... but when people say words that seem angry, you can usually tell how angry they are by noticing how much or how little they laugh, smile, etc. while saying it.
If a coworker says something like "You brought peanut butter cookies in to work on a day I wasn't there, and you know how much I love your peanut butter cookies! You're so awful!"... there will probably be a lot of smiles and laughs along with those words, and I'll understand that the coworker is not really mad at me. But if a coworker says something like "Why did you go on break while there was still work to do? We didn't get the work done on time!" ...then there will be an overall absence of "nice" signals, and I will know the person's mad at me for real. This is the way the system usually goes, in theory.
Interestingly, there are both "friendly" signals (smiles, laughs, raised eyebrows) and "angry" signals (frowns, bared teeth, lowered eyebrows)... but while an absence of "friendly" signals is often a sign of anger, an absence of "angry" signals is often not a sign of friendliness. Angry people often hide their anger signals, but people who are being friendly usually do not hide their friendly signals. So, in non-autistics, a total absence of facial expression is usually a sign of anger, not friendliness.
So I'm somewhat guilty of making the kind of assumptions that "Ballastexistenz" complains about: When I'm talking to a stranger who doesn't give off many "nice" signals, I tend to assume that they're angry at me, because that's what is usually true for non-autistics. But then, sometimes, I observe this person for a long time, and notice that I'm seeing the same absence of "nice" signals whether we're talking about something serious like a badly-timed break or something silly like a badly-timed batch of peanut butter cookies. Then I realize that there are two possibilities: Either I have offended this person in the past without realizing it, and so they're mad at me all the time... or they're the kind of person who just doesn't use much body language.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty paranoid about making social mistakes and causing people to have grudges against me, and so usually my first assumption is that the person is mad at me all the time because of some unwitting wrong I have committed against them in the past. And I'm really scared of conflict, so I will tend to be afraid of such people for a long time.
There are a few cases, currently, in which I am just beginning to realize that the people in question probably don't really have anything against me, they're probably just not very expressive people. I'm working on getting over my fear of them. It's hard.
Interestingly, I don't differentiate much between men and women on this subject. There are people of both sexes who scare me because their facial expressions don't change while talking to me. It's true that, in our society, men can get away with an absence of friendly body language more than women can-- but as a matter of fact, I tend to get along better with men who do give off a lot of friendly body language (my husband is an Aspie whose mannerisms have often been called "feminine").
So, even though I do have some mild difficulties of my own in figuring out body language, I have become somewhat reliant on it when dealing with non-autistics, because the words they speak often don't say anything at all about what they're really feeling, and body language is the only way to figure out what they are feeling. And when I meet someone who seems otherwise normal but doesn't use much body language, I'm usually out of my depth for a while.
(ETA: I used the word "autistics" in the above paragraph when I meant "non-autistics." I've changed it now. Sorry if it confused you.)
Basically, there's a very fascinating and informative blog post here, by a person on the autism spectrum who talks about being misunderstood because of an inability to give off "I-am-nice signals." While the post is mainly talking about signals that can be given over the internet (nuances in the wording of a sentence, for example) it's also very much of an issue with signals in body language.
As a person with Asperger's Syndrome, I can certainly relate... but my problems are a bit different. Personally, I'm the kind of Aspie who only has mild difficulty with giving off and perceiving "nice" signals, and I guess I have actually become kind of dependent on perceiving them when dealing with non-autistics.
What I mean is that non-autistics (and many autistics) often say things they don't mean (like "I want to kill him")... but when non-autistics say these things, they will give off fewer "nice" signals depending on how angry they are. So, you often can't tell what people mean by their words (usually the person who says "I want to kill him" doesn't really want to kill anyone)... but when people say words that seem angry, you can usually tell how angry they are by noticing how much or how little they laugh, smile, etc. while saying it.
If a coworker says something like "You brought peanut butter cookies in to work on a day I wasn't there, and you know how much I love your peanut butter cookies! You're so awful!"... there will probably be a lot of smiles and laughs along with those words, and I'll understand that the coworker is not really mad at me. But if a coworker says something like "Why did you go on break while there was still work to do? We didn't get the work done on time!" ...then there will be an overall absence of "nice" signals, and I will know the person's mad at me for real. This is the way the system usually goes, in theory.
Interestingly, there are both "friendly" signals (smiles, laughs, raised eyebrows) and "angry" signals (frowns, bared teeth, lowered eyebrows)... but while an absence of "friendly" signals is often a sign of anger, an absence of "angry" signals is often not a sign of friendliness. Angry people often hide their anger signals, but people who are being friendly usually do not hide their friendly signals. So, in non-autistics, a total absence of facial expression is usually a sign of anger, not friendliness.
So I'm somewhat guilty of making the kind of assumptions that "Ballastexistenz" complains about: When I'm talking to a stranger who doesn't give off many "nice" signals, I tend to assume that they're angry at me, because that's what is usually true for non-autistics. But then, sometimes, I observe this person for a long time, and notice that I'm seeing the same absence of "nice" signals whether we're talking about something serious like a badly-timed break or something silly like a badly-timed batch of peanut butter cookies. Then I realize that there are two possibilities: Either I have offended this person in the past without realizing it, and so they're mad at me all the time... or they're the kind of person who just doesn't use much body language.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty paranoid about making social mistakes and causing people to have grudges against me, and so usually my first assumption is that the person is mad at me all the time because of some unwitting wrong I have committed against them in the past. And I'm really scared of conflict, so I will tend to be afraid of such people for a long time.
There are a few cases, currently, in which I am just beginning to realize that the people in question probably don't really have anything against me, they're probably just not very expressive people. I'm working on getting over my fear of them. It's hard.
Interestingly, I don't differentiate much between men and women on this subject. There are people of both sexes who scare me because their facial expressions don't change while talking to me. It's true that, in our society, men can get away with an absence of friendly body language more than women can-- but as a matter of fact, I tend to get along better with men who do give off a lot of friendly body language (my husband is an Aspie whose mannerisms have often been called "feminine").
So, even though I do have some mild difficulties of my own in figuring out body language, I have become somewhat reliant on it when dealing with non-autistics, because the words they speak often don't say anything at all about what they're really feeling, and body language is the only way to figure out what they are feeling. And when I meet someone who seems otherwise normal but doesn't use much body language, I'm usually out of my depth for a while.
(ETA: I used the word "autistics" in the above paragraph when I meant "non-autistics." I've changed it now. Sorry if it confused you.)
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Finally: a thoughtful, serious post
I wish there were a politically correct word for "politically correct."
When I try to talk about the concept of using words that won't offend people, the only way I can describe it is "being politically correct," and that's a phrase with negative connotations, giving the impression that I don't like having to be that way.
That's not the impression I want to give. I really do make a good-faith effort to talk nicely and politely; I really try to avoid saying anything that could hurt someone's feelings. I do so because I believe it's the good thing to do, and I don't have any resentment about having to do it.
Of course, there are situations when people take offense at something that I don't feel it makes sense to be offended at... and there are situations when I really don't know what to say to avoid offending people. But most of the time it's pretty clear.
It's just important to remember that most rules about what is offensive are based more on association than logic. For instance, the word "Negro" is an Americanized pronunciation of the Spanish word for "black," so it literally means nothing more than "black," and logically it shouldn't be any more offensive than the word "black." (And the "N-word," for that matter, is just a distorted pronunciation of the word "Negro," and logically shouldn't be any more offensive than that). But words aren't purely logical-- they have meanings beyond the literal; they have meanings based on feelings and connections in people's minds.
Every word for a group of people is associated with a certain attitude toward that group, because of what opinions have been expressed in the past by people who used that word. This is much more important than the literal meanings of the words. And as long as we continue moving toward greater acceptance of minority groups, we will never have words that stay "politically correct." Every word for a minority group will, over time, become associated with an earlier generation that was less accepting of that group, and become an offensive word. (It happened to the word "Negro," which was not always offensive; in fact, it was the word used by those who wanted to abolish slavery. But it was used by many bigots, too, and even the abolitionists' attitudes toward race were much less enlightened than the attitudes that are popular today, and so the word became an insult.)
This tendency toward change is not necessarily a bad thing. It is, at least, a sign that shows that we are still moving forward in our acceptance of people. If any word for a group ever stays acceptable for an extended period of time, it will mean either that we have reached perfect acceptance of people, or that we've just stopped making progress.
When I try to talk about the concept of using words that won't offend people, the only way I can describe it is "being politically correct," and that's a phrase with negative connotations, giving the impression that I don't like having to be that way.
That's not the impression I want to give. I really do make a good-faith effort to talk nicely and politely; I really try to avoid saying anything that could hurt someone's feelings. I do so because I believe it's the good thing to do, and I don't have any resentment about having to do it.
Of course, there are situations when people take offense at something that I don't feel it makes sense to be offended at... and there are situations when I really don't know what to say to avoid offending people. But most of the time it's pretty clear.
It's just important to remember that most rules about what is offensive are based more on association than logic. For instance, the word "Negro" is an Americanized pronunciation of the Spanish word for "black," so it literally means nothing more than "black," and logically it shouldn't be any more offensive than the word "black." (And the "N-word," for that matter, is just a distorted pronunciation of the word "Negro," and logically shouldn't be any more offensive than that). But words aren't purely logical-- they have meanings beyond the literal; they have meanings based on feelings and connections in people's minds.
Every word for a group of people is associated with a certain attitude toward that group, because of what opinions have been expressed in the past by people who used that word. This is much more important than the literal meanings of the words. And as long as we continue moving toward greater acceptance of minority groups, we will never have words that stay "politically correct." Every word for a minority group will, over time, become associated with an earlier generation that was less accepting of that group, and become an offensive word. (It happened to the word "Negro," which was not always offensive; in fact, it was the word used by those who wanted to abolish slavery. But it was used by many bigots, too, and even the abolitionists' attitudes toward race were much less enlightened than the attitudes that are popular today, and so the word became an insult.)
This tendency toward change is not necessarily a bad thing. It is, at least, a sign that shows that we are still moving forward in our acceptance of people. If any word for a group ever stays acceptable for an extended period of time, it will mean either that we have reached perfect acceptance of people, or that we've just stopped making progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)