One of the commonest forms of advice anyone (but especially males) will receive for dating will be the stressing of the necessity of expressing confidence. And personally, I get that. I see how that works because like anyone else, I'm impressed by confidence when it is witnessed in others be it for dating, in the arts, standing up for oneself, etc. Confidence is certainly wonderful to be around and influenced by. It is indeed.
However, where does confidence come from? As I've often stated in the dating game, how am I supposed to be confident around women when women (up until June 24th, 2012 anyway) have always refused to go out with me? I would say confidence comes from victory and without victory, there can be no confidence. And while a date is more an endgame thing, smaller victories exist too leading up to that. Victories like girls you're actually attracted to smiling when you talk to them or those same girls giving you their phone numbers. Victories like girls actually competing for your attention. That, in particular, is a wonderful experience that I personally have only witnessed happening to other men...men who would also be getting the attention of the girls I have liked over the years. O jealousy!
But it got me thinking. What gets the confidence ball rolling? Some people possess it in spades whereas others, like me, desperately scrape the bottom of my psychology's leaky bucket looking for anything I can use because confidence has long since ceased to be available to me in useful amounts. I feel like the lead Prawn in District 9 patiently trying to distill fuel from scraps of their machinery to power their idle mothership. Here I'm combing through scraps of life experiences hoping to distill enough confidence to take a chance on someone and that the effort won't be wasted because I know it will be a long time before I've distilled enough to try again and in the meantime, I'll've only gotten older.
But still, where does it start? What is the basis of confidence? And then it hit me...childhood. But more specifically our parents. Our first experiences of confidence were acts of charity by our parents. Do you remember making drawings or picking flowers or singing songs for your mom and/or dad? Maybe you got good grades on your report card... Or at least do you remember watching other kids do the same when you were older? What is the parents' reaction to their child's decidedly crude drawing, hackneyed jokes, presentation of common wildflowers, or off-key singing? It was "beautiful", wasn't it? Much praise was given, was it not? And it was an act of charity on the part of the parents because there is no way in hell I can accept that any parent, no matter how enthralled they are with their own genetic progeny, actually believes that the drawing was beautiful or that the joke was funny or that the flowers were well presented/selected or that the singing was great. We've seen art done by masters; heard songs composed by The Beatles; seen the brightest, most colorful bouquets; witnessed unparalleled intelligence from scientists and philosophers; and we've all listened to some damn fine comedians over the years too.
These parents are bullshitting their children, but for a good reason. Harsh criticism early on will destroy their desire to create and stand out. The charitable confidence given to them in the beginning encourages them to continue because yes, having an audience matters.
I've tried to tell myself over the years that the approval of others isn't necessary and to a certain extent that is true because I worked on my language for a good eight years without anyone cheering me on to do so. But to a further extent, it is also a lie. I would argue that the energy/inspiration necessary to create this language derived from my crush on The First One, from learning how other languages worked, and perhaps additionally from whatever well of prior confidence in my abilities I had had from earlier periods in my life when crude gestures/attempts could still garner praise. But then, that language has lain largely dormant for over ten years now. Imagine how much closer to completion it would be today if I had someone (or several someones) supporting me in my quest either through praise, encouragement, or even simple curiosity on their part?
Eventually these kids will go to school and have friends who will not give them praise just because. Suddenly they will find themselves challenged to earn their praise. Here, those children who have had much charitable confidence put in their psychological buckets will find themselves able to weather these storms. They will get better at drawing; better at writing; better at singing; better at joke telling; better at their particular sport; better at school; etc. and earn praise that way. They will turn their charitable confidence into plain old confidence and with that confidence, they will get the girls they like because they will be projecting the air girls find attractive.
As for everyone else, barring acts of charity anew, we are lost. As for dating, Winwood was the one who charitably donated confidence to me that girls might actually want to date me. I fear over a year later that it has worn off. I'm tired and finding myself not wishing to try anymore. I feel myself missing my time to work on my own shit again. I feel myself wanting to pull back. I wonder if I should? But then I realize I'm fast staring down the barrel of middle age and if I truly do not wish to die alone, I cannot stop...
Confidence may be born of charity, but it is sustained by skill and damn it, I need skills...
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
THE WORTHLESSNESS OF BEING MALE...
I'm pretty sure genetic diversity is the only reason males exist. The mixing of alleles appears to be our only real function. Like the Vice President who has but two functions, waiting on hand should the President die and breaking a tie in the Senate (seriously, look it up), men appear to only exist for the purpose of insemination. Sure, like the Vice President, we can find other things to do in the meantime but otherwise men are useless.
Insects like ants and bees take this to the extreme. Males are born only to mate with the queen. That lucky guy then immediately dies and the remainder of his cohorts hang around doing no work and consuming hive/colony resources until they are kicked out by the workers later in the season to starve.
I guess the reason there's so many of us is because the female does not control the sex of our species but rather the male and his reproductive system does not favor Xs over Ys giving males a 50/50 shot at being born. But it's obvious to me that women are the half of our species that is important. They're the ones who actively engage in reproduction. A man's role ends (evolutionarily speaking) at ejaculation. That is the only point in the reproductive cycle a male need participate in. It is the only time a male is definitely needed. At every other point in any human's given life, a woman can do the rest of the work. For only those few minutes does the male shine. The rest of a male's life is spent trying to impress a female enough to be given those few minutes and trying to determine if a female is susceptible to/suitable for such impression.
Recent scientific speculation suggests that the evolution of sexual reproduction was mainly to keep one or two steps ahead of the viruses, bacteria, mold, and parasites ever nipping at our species' heels. Sexual reproduction exists also to produce random favorable combinations to help deal with random environmental effects like drought, famine, prolonged cold, etc.
I hear of some species like deer and sea lions in which there will be a dominant male who has a harem of females. Many males of these species are born but never mate because they cannot compete with the alpha...that is, until the alpha dies. Then it's war for a new alpha. But still, it shows even for them, the relative uselessness of males. It makes me wonder how many of us would ever be born if women were in control of sex determination. What ratio of males to females would be necessary to retain sufficient genetic diversity to ward off the threats mentioned earlier?
Or has the evolution of selfishness ensured that males would continue exist in great numbers even with such an ability on the female's part because females would rather have a male of their own than share one amongst many?
Insects like ants and bees take this to the extreme. Males are born only to mate with the queen. That lucky guy then immediately dies and the remainder of his cohorts hang around doing no work and consuming hive/colony resources until they are kicked out by the workers later in the season to starve.
I guess the reason there's so many of us is because the female does not control the sex of our species but rather the male and his reproductive system does not favor Xs over Ys giving males a 50/50 shot at being born. But it's obvious to me that women are the half of our species that is important. They're the ones who actively engage in reproduction. A man's role ends (evolutionarily speaking) at ejaculation. That is the only point in the reproductive cycle a male need participate in. It is the only time a male is definitely needed. At every other point in any human's given life, a woman can do the rest of the work. For only those few minutes does the male shine. The rest of a male's life is spent trying to impress a female enough to be given those few minutes and trying to determine if a female is susceptible to/suitable for such impression.
Recent scientific speculation suggests that the evolution of sexual reproduction was mainly to keep one or two steps ahead of the viruses, bacteria, mold, and parasites ever nipping at our species' heels. Sexual reproduction exists also to produce random favorable combinations to help deal with random environmental effects like drought, famine, prolonged cold, etc.
I hear of some species like deer and sea lions in which there will be a dominant male who has a harem of females. Many males of these species are born but never mate because they cannot compete with the alpha...that is, until the alpha dies. Then it's war for a new alpha. But still, it shows even for them, the relative uselessness of males. It makes me wonder how many of us would ever be born if women were in control of sex determination. What ratio of males to females would be necessary to retain sufficient genetic diversity to ward off the threats mentioned earlier?
Or has the evolution of selfishness ensured that males would continue exist in great numbers even with such an ability on the female's part because females would rather have a male of their own than share one amongst many?
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
SCI-FI TECH
Some days I think the most futuristic technology shown in science fiction is the "manual override" function.
Seriously, consider your real life stuff. Computers sort of have it. If your mouse stops functioning, you can use keyboard commands to navigate most stuff. But my television? Without the remote I cannot access menu functions. Some days I'm surprised I can still adjust the volume, change the channel, and turn the damned thing off without a remote. My old stereo could not access the auxiliary port without the remote which seemed ridiculously stupid since every other function could be done on the unit itself. How many of you can roll down your car's windows without power? Even if it was a terribly inconvenient crank...you'd think a panel could opened to access one. You know they'd have one in sci-fi. Hell, the Starship Enterprise had manual controls. Yes, it looked like an Atari joystick but damn it, in an emergency, you could steer the Enterprise from your seat.
I don't know. I just wonder about stupid shit like this every so often...
Seriously, consider your real life stuff. Computers sort of have it. If your mouse stops functioning, you can use keyboard commands to navigate most stuff. But my television? Without the remote I cannot access menu functions. Some days I'm surprised I can still adjust the volume, change the channel, and turn the damned thing off without a remote. My old stereo could not access the auxiliary port without the remote which seemed ridiculously stupid since every other function could be done on the unit itself. How many of you can roll down your car's windows without power? Even if it was a terribly inconvenient crank...you'd think a panel could opened to access one. You know they'd have one in sci-fi. Hell, the Starship Enterprise had manual controls. Yes, it looked like an Atari joystick but damn it, in an emergency, you could steer the Enterprise from your seat.
I don't know. I just wonder about stupid shit like this every so often...
BANKING REGULATIONS, SHMANKING REGULATIONS...
Just another of my many dumb ideas. Economic bubbles like the housing bubble which burst in 2006 and the derivatives bubble which burst in 2008 can cause massive amounts of damage to an economy and affect many millions of people greatly. At the center of these storms are banking institutions lending out money, making what amounts to financial bets, and insuring those bets against losses. It turns out this is a ridiculously multi-trillion dollar industry in a world there is only about three trillion dollars in existence. It's kind of interesting when you think about it...it also sounds fraudulent and that's probably because it is at some level.
One thing I've learned over the years is that banks are not required to fully back their loans. In fact any given bank is only required to have a 4% cash reserve which means that if you've deposited $20,000 in the bank, they are only required to keep $800 of that onhand and the bank will make loans with the rest. (oh wow, it's actually worse than that)
That might sound all well and good but here's where it gets crazier. Thanks to something called Fractional Reserve Lending (which is totally legal by the way), it turns out the bank can lend out far more than the $19,200 it has available to loan. It's kind of scary. The example in the link shows how a $100 deposit can legally turn into over $350 in loans for the bank and legally exist as over $450 in deposits when only $100 ever existed. This is a source of inflation by the way. I personally don't think for a moment big ticket items like cars, houses, and education would cost what they do if they weren't propped up by these kinds of lending schemes.
Now, despite the massive recession following the Lehman Bros. collapse in September 2008 - I think it's called the Great Recession now - banks are rather insistent that they are not in need of additional oversight in their lending practices. Personally I think that's bullshit to the highest level yet they're clearly getting away with it so don't expect much folks. But I did have this one idea and believe it or not it comes from a Warner Bros. cartoon.
I remember when a bank robber would rob a bank in certain cartoons, they'd pass by the front entrance where the bank proudly boasted its total assets. The criminal would then erase everything but the cents and run off. Well...what if banks had to do a version of that?
What I'm thinking is this. A bank has so much cash - physical actual cash - on hand. It also has various obligations on hand such as depositors' accounts, certificates of deposit, mortgages, other types of loans, etc. Larger institutions might have various CDOs and other derivatives on their balance sheets as well.
Now, I'm one of those people who believes that it was overlending by the banks which led to this problem. I see it like a hot potato or a pyramid scheme. When things are going well, no one notices but eventually it has to end because otherwise the value of an asset or commodity would become infinite. Take houses for example. At the start of the bubble, people sold their homes for a tidy profit and those homes in turn could be sold again for an even higher price. I saw homes in my area go from about $250,000 to over $500,000 over the span of five years or so. The mentality becomes that of "Houses can only go up, Up, UP!!!" and they do...for a while. Eventually, however, some schmuck is left holding the bag when he can no longer sell his home for a higher price. He's forced to take a loss. Now the word gets out that if you're patient you can get a better deal. Now home prices start to sink leaving more people holding the bag because now their homes are worth less than what they paid for them.
On top of all this mess, as home values were increasing (on paper, mind you), banks were all too happy to have owners tap into this "equity" and loan the homeowners money off the fictitious increasing value of their property. And why not? The home's value is rising so fast, the loan will pay for itself. I'll remind you here that people are stupid and easily swept up in such fads.
Anyways, the point I wanted to make was, how about a trade? No new banking regulations (hell, we can even undo some other regulations too to sweeten the pot) in exchange for a number. A number which must be posted on the bank's entrance, on every bank statement, front and center on its webpage, etc. That number would be just how much your account would be worth if the bank had to pay out all its obligations at once with the actual cash it has on hand. Realizable assets like loans and mortgages don't count. It's simply CASH ON HAND ÷ OBLIGATIONS. This figure could be expressed as a percentage. In other words, for every dollar I have on deposit, the bank in the event of failure can guarantee me x.xx% on the dollar of my deposit. Bank statements would express the actual guaranteed amount.
Now imagine you received your bank statement and saw the guaranteed amount of your $20,000 deposit listed as $800. That might give you pause. But it's worse than that. The derivatives market is estimated at over $600 trillion, and the real estate market is estimated at $34½ trillion, the stock market capitalization is estimated at $15.35 trillion, among other things I'm sure. Think about that. About $650 trillion dollars being traded around compared to about $3 trillion in cash.
Viewed totally, that means there's only about ½¢ for every dollar in obligations so if the entire system (somehow) collapsed, you (on a system-wide basis) would only receive less than $100 for your $20,000 deposit. The reason I say less is because not all of that $3 trillion dollars is in banks. If I remember correctly, 2/3s of it is held abroad too so you're talking less than $33 of your $20,000 could be guaranteed.
If a bank had to admit that to you; that it could guarantee so little of your deposit...would you feel safe putting your money in such a bank? Yes, a lot of unwarranted assumptions are being made here. Obviously FDIC guarantees are not being considered but I wouldn't anyway. The banks abuse the FDIC notion now. They figure since your deposits are guaranteed up to $250,000 by the federal government, they see no reason to be careful with your money because fuck it, it's guaranteed. You won't lose so why should they give a shit about what happens to it? Banks lend money in your checking accounts too. Checking accounts are supposed to be demand accounts and thus fully on deposit at the bank but they sweep the money up when the bank is closed and lend it for short periods during the overnight without your permission nor do they share the profits with you.
But anyways, long-winded entry aside. That's what I want. A single number. A number that shows just how much my deposit is actually guaranteed for. Banks would have much greater incentive to be careful and considerate with other people's money if people saw at a glance how reckless the bank is behaving. People would seek the highest guaranteed number.
How to properly enforce it would be another question.
One thing I've learned over the years is that banks are not required to fully back their loans. In fact any given bank is only required to have a 4% cash reserve which means that if you've deposited $20,000 in the bank, they are only required to keep $800 of that onhand and the bank will make loans with the rest. (oh wow, it's actually worse than that)
That might sound all well and good but here's where it gets crazier. Thanks to something called Fractional Reserve Lending (which is totally legal by the way), it turns out the bank can lend out far more than the $19,200 it has available to loan. It's kind of scary. The example in the link shows how a $100 deposit can legally turn into over $350 in loans for the bank and legally exist as over $450 in deposits when only $100 ever existed. This is a source of inflation by the way. I personally don't think for a moment big ticket items like cars, houses, and education would cost what they do if they weren't propped up by these kinds of lending schemes.
Now, despite the massive recession following the Lehman Bros. collapse in September 2008 - I think it's called the Great Recession now - banks are rather insistent that they are not in need of additional oversight in their lending practices. Personally I think that's bullshit to the highest level yet they're clearly getting away with it so don't expect much folks. But I did have this one idea and believe it or not it comes from a Warner Bros. cartoon.
I remember when a bank robber would rob a bank in certain cartoons, they'd pass by the front entrance where the bank proudly boasted its total assets. The criminal would then erase everything but the cents and run off. Well...what if banks had to do a version of that?
What I'm thinking is this. A bank has so much cash - physical actual cash - on hand. It also has various obligations on hand such as depositors' accounts, certificates of deposit, mortgages, other types of loans, etc. Larger institutions might have various CDOs and other derivatives on their balance sheets as well.
Now, I'm one of those people who believes that it was overlending by the banks which led to this problem. I see it like a hot potato or a pyramid scheme. When things are going well, no one notices but eventually it has to end because otherwise the value of an asset or commodity would become infinite. Take houses for example. At the start of the bubble, people sold their homes for a tidy profit and those homes in turn could be sold again for an even higher price. I saw homes in my area go from about $250,000 to over $500,000 over the span of five years or so. The mentality becomes that of "Houses can only go up, Up, UP!!!" and they do...for a while. Eventually, however, some schmuck is left holding the bag when he can no longer sell his home for a higher price. He's forced to take a loss. Now the word gets out that if you're patient you can get a better deal. Now home prices start to sink leaving more people holding the bag because now their homes are worth less than what they paid for them.
On top of all this mess, as home values were increasing (on paper, mind you), banks were all too happy to have owners tap into this "equity" and loan the homeowners money off the fictitious increasing value of their property. And why not? The home's value is rising so fast, the loan will pay for itself. I'll remind you here that people are stupid and easily swept up in such fads.
Anyways, the point I wanted to make was, how about a trade? No new banking regulations (hell, we can even undo some other regulations too to sweeten the pot) in exchange for a number. A number which must be posted on the bank's entrance, on every bank statement, front and center on its webpage, etc. That number would be just how much your account would be worth if the bank had to pay out all its obligations at once with the actual cash it has on hand. Realizable assets like loans and mortgages don't count. It's simply CASH ON HAND ÷ OBLIGATIONS. This figure could be expressed as a percentage. In other words, for every dollar I have on deposit, the bank in the event of failure can guarantee me x.xx% on the dollar of my deposit. Bank statements would express the actual guaranteed amount.
Now imagine you received your bank statement and saw the guaranteed amount of your $20,000 deposit listed as $800. That might give you pause. But it's worse than that. The derivatives market is estimated at over $600 trillion, and the real estate market is estimated at $34½ trillion, the stock market capitalization is estimated at $15.35 trillion, among other things I'm sure. Think about that. About $650 trillion dollars being traded around compared to about $3 trillion in cash.
Viewed totally, that means there's only about ½¢ for every dollar in obligations so if the entire system (somehow) collapsed, you (on a system-wide basis) would only receive less than $100 for your $20,000 deposit. The reason I say less is because not all of that $3 trillion dollars is in banks. If I remember correctly, 2/3s of it is held abroad too so you're talking less than $33 of your $20,000 could be guaranteed.
If a bank had to admit that to you; that it could guarantee so little of your deposit...would you feel safe putting your money in such a bank? Yes, a lot of unwarranted assumptions are being made here. Obviously FDIC guarantees are not being considered but I wouldn't anyway. The banks abuse the FDIC notion now. They figure since your deposits are guaranteed up to $250,000 by the federal government, they see no reason to be careful with your money because fuck it, it's guaranteed. You won't lose so why should they give a shit about what happens to it? Banks lend money in your checking accounts too. Checking accounts are supposed to be demand accounts and thus fully on deposit at the bank but they sweep the money up when the bank is closed and lend it for short periods during the overnight without your permission nor do they share the profits with you.
But anyways, long-winded entry aside. That's what I want. A single number. A number that shows just how much my deposit is actually guaranteed for. Banks would have much greater incentive to be careful and considerate with other people's money if people saw at a glance how reckless the bank is behaving. People would seek the highest guaranteed number.
How to properly enforce it would be another question.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
THE SMURFETTE PRINCIPLE...
What was Gargamel thinking when he created Smurfette? And yes, I know he stated his intentions but what I'm getting at is...how was it supposed to work? He clearly didn't think this through.
The Smurfs are magical beings born under the light of a blue moon. They don't reproduce...not even asexually through budding like a hydra. They're utterly sexless and given how long they live, I can only guess that the reason Papa Smurf is called that is because he came upon more than one human (Homnibus maybe?) who referred to him as the father of the Smurfs he fosters. It was probably the beard...
The Smurfs show gender types (Vanity and Hefty are extreme examples) but nevertheless remain sexless. They almost certainly lack reproductive organs because that's not how they come to be. I would imagine if they were ever shown speaking a language of their own that it would not have any gender reference (outside of maybe living versus nonliving things). I can only imagine animals and especially humans confused them with their two halves of the same whole thing going for them. If there were a Superiority Complex Smurf, perhaps that Smurf would think their kind to be better than the other forms of life because they have no need for such thing as separate halves and crude babymaking.
So again, I reiterate, how exactly was Gargamel's plan supposed to work? His plan was flawed from the start when he assumed their species played under the same male/female rules most lifeforms obey. I know how it played out because I watched the cartoon: the writers clearly assumed all the Smurfs were dudes and had no qualms about the idea that a multi-hundred to possible multi-thousand year old society which has never had a Smurfette before would suddenly find itself full of pent up attraction for something they couldn't possibly even conceive.
And yet again and again throughout the series the Smurfs are gaga for her.
Maybe it was the hair... Some envy perhaps? :-)
The only thing I think I could accept is that the attraction to and lust for Smurfette is not because she is a female Smurf, an impossibility as far as I'm concerned, but rather a Smurf not born like other Smurfs. She's unique and different because she was not born of the light of a blue moon. They're attracted to her rarity, not her femininity despite how the cartoon portrays it. Either that, Papa Smurf went a little overboard in his attempts to undo Gargamel's spells and made her irresistibly charismatic to the other Smurfs. At the moment I forget if Papa Smurf was relative immune to her "charms" or if he acted like he lusted after her too.
Also, if Gargamel could create a Smurf, however stereotypically feminine, from a magic spell, why didn't he just make a bunch of them that way considering how interested he has been in turning them into gold and/or foodstuffs? Nothing in the spell used to make her seemed particularly expensive or difficult to obtain, unless the "hardest stone" for her heart was in fact a diamond, something Gargamel certainly would have difficulty affording...
The Smurfs are magical beings born under the light of a blue moon. They don't reproduce...not even asexually through budding like a hydra. They're utterly sexless and given how long they live, I can only guess that the reason Papa Smurf is called that is because he came upon more than one human (Homnibus maybe?) who referred to him as the father of the Smurfs he fosters. It was probably the beard...
The Smurfs show gender types (Vanity and Hefty are extreme examples) but nevertheless remain sexless. They almost certainly lack reproductive organs because that's not how they come to be. I would imagine if they were ever shown speaking a language of their own that it would not have any gender reference (outside of maybe living versus nonliving things). I can only imagine animals and especially humans confused them with their two halves of the same whole thing going for them. If there were a Superiority Complex Smurf, perhaps that Smurf would think their kind to be better than the other forms of life because they have no need for such thing as separate halves and crude babymaking.
So again, I reiterate, how exactly was Gargamel's plan supposed to work? His plan was flawed from the start when he assumed their species played under the same male/female rules most lifeforms obey. I know how it played out because I watched the cartoon: the writers clearly assumed all the Smurfs were dudes and had no qualms about the idea that a multi-hundred to possible multi-thousand year old society which has never had a Smurfette before would suddenly find itself full of pent up attraction for something they couldn't possibly even conceive.
And yet again and again throughout the series the Smurfs are gaga for her.
Maybe it was the hair... Some envy perhaps? :-)
The only thing I think I could accept is that the attraction to and lust for Smurfette is not because she is a female Smurf, an impossibility as far as I'm concerned, but rather a Smurf not born like other Smurfs. She's unique and different because she was not born of the light of a blue moon. They're attracted to her rarity, not her femininity despite how the cartoon portrays it. Either that, Papa Smurf went a little overboard in his attempts to undo Gargamel's spells and made her irresistibly charismatic to the other Smurfs. At the moment I forget if Papa Smurf was relative immune to her "charms" or if he acted like he lusted after her too.
Also, if Gargamel could create a Smurf, however stereotypically feminine, from a magic spell, why didn't he just make a bunch of them that way considering how interested he has been in turning them into gold and/or foodstuffs? Nothing in the spell used to make her seemed particularly expensive or difficult to obtain, unless the "hardest stone" for her heart was in fact a diamond, something Gargamel certainly would have difficulty affording...