Skip to content

Current reading and “reading”

Current reading and “reading” published on 2 Comments on Current reading and “reading”

One of the most enjoyable things about Skepticon was actually the drive there. I’m listening to the audiobook of Jeffrey Toobin’s The Oath, just as I listened to his The Nine on a long drive a few years ago. His writing lends itself particularly well to being read out loud. The former book (about the Rehnquist Supreme Court) was read by Toobin himself while the latter (about the Roberts SCOTUS) is not, which turned out to be fine as Robertson Dean is an excellent narrator. I didn’t quite reach the end by the time I returned home, but am almost there and I’ll be sorry when it’s finished. Definitely recommended.

After hearing about it on the Professor Blastoff podcast, I’ve pre-ordered and am looking forward to Jen Kirkman’s I Can Barely Take Care of Myself. Oh, and I’m halfway through Tina Fey reading Bossypants and need to finish that.

And after missing this year’s beginning of NaNoWriMo, I’ve resolved to read more fiction. Trouble is, it’s difficult to decide what to go with because a novel is always such an emotional investment. Got some possibilities in mind, but have yet to settle on one.

Looking back

Looking back published on No Comments on Looking back

I maintained a Livejournal account from March 2002 through November 2009 and am now trying to decide what to do with it. Looking back through, I really wish I’d kept an actual blog instead, or at least in addition– it’s a mix of personal things that wouldn’t be blog-appropriate and comments on current events and my studies that absolutely would, and it definitely would have been a good idea to separate those out and put the latter group somewhere else. Somewhere like…well, here. I guess I thought that if I didn’t put everything I had to say into entries that would pop up in people’s LJ friends feeds, they wouldn’t read it. But now I’ve either realized that that’s not true, or don’t care if it is. Briefly in 2005 I had a separate account called Gretchen_study which was specifically about religion and evolution, but I didn’t maintain it.

Oh, and all of the photos are gone because I hosted them at Photoisland.com which then shut down. Yes, I had copies, but those were kept on a laptop which was later stolen. Let that be a lesson– back up your stuff, in several places.

If you have an interest in hearing what it was generally like to move in England and do an MA on religion and culture in 2003, here’s where that starts. If you want to read what it was like to move to Denmark in 2005 and do a PhD on religion and cognition, that begins here. If you don’t want to do either one, I don’t blame you in the slightest.

Reading through old entries, I see that I was a vastly more upbeat, optimistic person then. I expected things to turn out well, and was disappointed when they didn’t. That is a tendency which has, shall we say, diminished a bit.

Stage fright = selfishness?

Stage fright = selfishness? published on 3 Comments on Stage fright = selfishness?

Via Big Think, actor Jonathan Pryce characterizes stage fright as selfishness:

It’s an interesting thought, and I’m not going to say he’s wrong, but will point out a few things:

1. Self-consciousness and selfishness are not the same thing. Portraying it as selfishness isn’t just “cruel” because it’s hard to hear someone telling you that you’re selfish (though it is), but because it suggests that the anxiety they feel while speaking publicly is because they are somehow trying to monopolize everyone’s attention and make the audience think they’re better than they are. I’ve seen speakers who give off this impression, and they don’t appear to be frightened in the slightest. When a person obviously has stage fright, it’s perhaps as painful to watch and listen to them speak as it is for them to do it. Their voice quavers and they speak too quickly, and you want to whisk them away to a safer location where they may relax, have a beer (or two or three), and record their talk so that you can listen to it later. It would be a better time for all parties involved.

2. After describing stage fright as selfish, Pryce goes on to contrast it with something that sounds, to me, more like selfishness: focusing on what you have to give the audience. It assumes that you have something to give the audience, something important, something they perhaps can only get from you. I’ve never been quite able to make this assumption, though I don’t know whether that’s ultimately at the root of my own stage fright. I do know that mine is very real, and it has a very physical manifestation: I go faint. It feels exactly like I feel when I try to give blood, which is a light-headedness combined with nausea, and I start to see red and blue spots. I want to throw up or flee the room, or both. I actually did faint once while performing in a competition in high school– dropped straight to the ground. It was an unpleasant and embarrassing experience, to say the least. Since then I’ve found that I can speak before an audience only if I have a prepared paper in front of me from which to read, and the prescribed assistance of Propranolol to stop my heart from beating out of my chest as I do so. As you can imagine, I try to avoid the necessity of doing this very often. Some of us just aren’t performers.

3. This is, notably, an instance of a person who has succeeded at solving a problem deciding to diagnose the reason why people who have failed, have failed. It seems as though there are degrees of stage fright, and people who get a small amount of it tend to assume that their experience is universal– that nobody else experiences something worse. People who have a “trick” that makes their stage fright manageable are rather like people who have a “trick” that makes it easier to avoid eating too many sweets. It might work for them, but there’s no particular reason it should work for anyone else. And yet because of the popular doctrine of self-empowerment, it seems as if a trick that works for someone else should work for you, and if it doesn’t then it’s your own fault. I wonder if that creates a similar effect to that of failing at dieting– the failure brings with it a sense of personal futility that compounds the original concern and discourages future attempts to improve. This seems like something that a person trained in clinical psychology should address, and…that person would not be me.

Casual Sunday. Casual everyday.

Casual Sunday. Casual everyday. published on 4 Comments on Casual Sunday. Casual everyday.
Spotted at infidel753.blogspot.com

I am not one of those people who enjoys dressing up. I do not fault them for it, and wish them all the best, but I am not one of them. Sure, it can be fun for a wedding or fancy dinner, but generally speaking I am at my happiest in a t-shirt and jeans. Or better yet a tank top and jeans, because I like my arms to be as free as possible. There are particular brands of clothing that I like, but not because they are expensive– because they have a track record of producing durable clothes with nice textures. I rarely wear skirts and almost never wear heels, though again I don’t have a hard and fast rule against them. I just like to be comfortable. I spent the final two years in college barefoot about 80% of the time.

I would like to dispense with the notion that dressing formally conveys respect. Sure, you wear a nice black dress to a funeral. But I don’t think that occasions in which it is mandatory to dress up out of sheer tradition should be necessarily treated that way. For example, I’d love to have a president who never wears suits. If female, I’d love to have a president who doesn’t even wear dresses (but of course we’d have to get one first). I would love to see Congress convene casually, clad in attire that might have come from Target or even a thrift store. Hell, I’d like to see actors and actresses show up to the Oscars that way! Can you imagine? That might be the downfall of the fashion industry, but it would be a beautiful downfall indeed.

One good thing about dressing casually is that t-shirts and jeans don’t really go out of style. So you don’t have to buy a lot of them, though you could. Yes, trends in different styles of jeans come and go, but you can wear the same basic pair of Levis in 2012 that you wore in 1998, provided they still fit. Trying to be always on-trend and fashionable is a good way to spend a lot of money and acquire a lot of clothes that you won’t wear again after this year. Clothes that you have to look in the mirror while wearing, and think “Wow, I don’t look especially good in this…but at least I’m trendy!”

Lastly, dressing formally does not make you more virtuous, knowledgeable, or trustworthy. Unfortunately everywhere you look this myth is reiterated, and I would love to see it banished completely. Let’s have experts interviewed on the news while clad in shorts. Heck, news anchors clad in shorts…or I guess tank tops, since you don’t generally see their legs. Talking heads of all sorts being casual from the neck down. That would actually force us to consider what they’re saying by its content, rather than instinctively conclude without explicitly saying it to ourselves “This person looks nice; he/she must know what he/she is talking about and generally be a trustworthy person.”

That would be nice. But I’m not holding my breath– not for that to happen, and not to get my jeans on.

Operation: tweezin’ for a reason

Operation: tweezin’ for a reason published on No Comments on Operation: tweezin’ for a reason

So my nieces are going to visit my parents soon, and my mother was thinking of games for them to play. She brought up the game Operation, which was in the basement. “Operation?” I said. “Yes, I got it for you and your brothers when you were kids, and I was keeping it in the basement but forgot where it was, so I ended up getting another one.” So the first one stayed in the basement, for about twenty seven years, unopened.

Einstein-looking doctor’s floof of white hair is obscured by the price tag:
$8.99 from TG&Y, a five and dime store that doesn’t exist anymore

You might be able to guess my response– I said “Don’t open it!” and went online to do some research. I am certainly no expert on collectibles, but if there was any sort of chance that the game might be one, I needed to investigate.

In addition to being unopened, the most interesting and “collectible” (as in, weird and different) thing about this edition is the fact that the image on the box includes a doctor who is smoking. And not just smoking, but smoking a cigarette in a long holder, the end of which is actually ashing down onto the face of the patient he’s operating on.

Clearly from a different time– but I guess if he has a literal
Adam’s apple, a little ash in the face is the least of his problems

If you look for Operation on eBay, you will see a number of copies of the game that market themselves as “smoking doctor” editions. At least one of these claims to also be a first edition, supposedly 47 years old– the game first came out in 1965. However, according to this guide that particular copy isn’t as old as that, and neither is my mom’s:

The first Operation game was designed by John Spinello for Milton Bradley and released in 1965. In this first release there is a smoking doctor on the box. BUT WAIT! Think that if the cover has a smoking doctor it’s an original? WRONG!! The original has a slanted key through the Milton Bradley Logo. It also says 1965 on both the box and the game board.  Also, on the original, the instructions are printed on the inside cover of the box, not in a paper pamphlet.  Another major characteristic of the original is that it says in green lettering; Electric Game where you are the doctor. The games that are not originals say in bold black lettering; Skill Game where you are the doctor.

Bummer. I’m not going to open it up and see if there’s a 1965 on the game board or where the instructions are, because it already fails the slanted key and the green “Electric Game” tests. And I know my mother didn’t buy the game before 1980.

Here’s something else you might not know about Operation– the game has been re-made for so many different things! Here are the ones of I’m (now) aware:

According to Wikipedia,

A Doctor Who version of the game was released in Great Britain, where players get to “operate” on a Dalek in order to (from the product description) “make it strong enough to take over the world. But be careful… if you damage it’ll quickly tell you with one of its terrifying phrases! Whether it’s the Targeting Sensor that you need to operate on, or the Manipulator Arm, you’ll need a steady hand and nerves of steel!”

Who knew? I knew it was a widespread game, but I didn’t know that kids would be encouraged to perform mock surgery on every popular character they’d see in movies and on TV.

No, it was never actually a favorite of mine…I was okay at it, but never properly appreciated the thrill of risking a battery-powered sudden vibration and loud buzzing noises if I failed to tweeze a plastic bit of something out of a hole just right, without touching any of the edges. I did however learn to be adept at tweezing, which is a skill anyone can benefit from. The game is still going strong, though it’s now sold by Hasbro rather than Milton Bradley. So if you’d like to get your tweeze on, there are many options available for you.

Timesucker: Drawception

Timesucker: Drawception published on 2 Comments on Timesucker: Drawception
“Batman changing his pants”

Other people are currently obsessed with Draw Something, but I have neither iPhone nor iPad so I’m immune to the contagion. What has caught my interest lately (and time, and energy, but not money) is Drawception. It’s a free browser-based game that combines drawing with Telephone. Their description:

1) A player begins a game with a short phrase – for example, “A cow jumping over the moon”
2) A randomly chosen player then draws that phrase
3) Another random player describes the new drawing
4) Yet another player draws the new description
5) Steps 3 and 4 repeat until 12 unique players have participated
When completed, the participating players can view the often unexpected and hilarious results!

They are indeed hilarious, and the two things that make this possible are a) the fact that it’s random, and the only thing you will see when you click “play” is the drawing or interpretation of the person before you (or a box into which you type a phrase, if you’re starting a new game) and b) it’s timed, so each player only has ten minutes to finish his or her turn. This makes the game proceed relatively quickly. It is possible to skip a turn and not participate in the game that has been handed to you, but most people don’t seem to do this. And most people by far are not skilled artists (though some are astonishingly so), so there’s no need to get caught up in how pathetic your mouse-drawn sketches are. You just read things, draw things, and have fun. Here’s a sample game in which I participated under the name Rillion. The game is still in its early beta, but has been getting all sorts of attention and new features are being added daily– your profile now includes a list of games you’ve participated in, drawings you’ve done, favorite games you’ve seen, people you’re following, and people who are following you.

Oh, and people who insist on drawing nothing but penises and poop, regardless of what the clue was? They get banned, quick-like. In addition to being able to upvote or downvote someone’s drawing/interpretation, you can report them outright for screwing up the game. It’s so much more fun to see people actually doing their best to figure out how on earth they’re supposed to depict the bizarre phrases they were given, or figure out what the hell the drawing they’re looking at is supposed to be.

PSA

PSA published on 2 Comments on PSA

Pleading for Sympathetic Acceptance: Your host blogger is in the process of moving, and has precious little time (not to mention space) to write. She should return to her regularly scheduled ranting in due time.

Fun with word clouds

Fun with word clouds published on No Comments on Fun with word clouds

Upon discovering wordle.net, I decided to make a couple of word clouds. First, for my CV and dissertation (both of which which can be viewed by clicking the tab above, or here). And then another for this blog, which apparently only captured words from this front page. Very fun.

Shape

Shape published on 1 Comment on Shape

You know what the absolute worst part of not working out for a long time is?
The first time back. That’s when you’re slapped in the face with the fact of how utterly out of shape you are, and how far you have to go until you’re back at a point more closely resembling where you were a few years ago, when you worked out almost religiously–no fooling– and still didn’t consider yourself to be in good shape.

Yeah.

I went swimming this morning, because that’s my exercise of choice. And I started to feel like I was actually doing something, like my body was actually cooperating, toward the end. Tomorrow I’ll go earlier and do more.

Damnit.

Mashups worth mentioning

Mashups worth mentioning published on No Comments on Mashups worth mentioning

By the way, the song I posted on Sunday I got from the Best of Bootie mashups, a series of albums consisting of tracks combining songs or audio recordings from the past couple of decades. They’re all free to download, and there are some definite gems in there. For example, did you know that Avril Levigne goes well with Toni Basil, that the Jackson 5 gets along famously with Guns n’ Roses, or that LL Cool J and Dexy’s Midnight Runners are a match made in heaven?  I thought not. But don’t take my word for it…