Notes from the Petting Zoo

We need more crimes like we need a hole in the head, but this one, I think, is enough of an insidious bastard that it might just be worth keeping an eye on. I call it Gratitude Theft.

Scenario:
You notice the garbage needs taking out.
You: “Hey, the garbage is full. I’ll take it out tonight after dinner.”
Her: “Oh thank you, handsome, attentive boyfriend!”
You: (glow with gratitude-boost)

What’s actually happened here?

You received the warm happy glow of gratitude, but what did you offer? Well, nothing. A future plan, fraught with uncertainty. But there was no actual deed.

Now, let’s skip ahead to after dinner. One of two things will occur:

1. You will take the trash out, or
2. You will forget to take the trash out.

Let’s assume you take the trash out. So, the trash goes out and your partner sees the act done and now they’re in a fix. If they thank you NOW, then they’ve given you two thank-you’s for the same job. If they DON’T thank you, they seem like an asshole. Not cool.

Now let’s assume you DON’T take the trash out (maybe the Pope came to visit for a quick bit of oral sex, I don’t know). So now the partner sees the trash still sitting there, still all stinky and high-rise and suddenly they think “Now wait-a-sec. I already PAID for that job to be done with my thank you. It should be done. What the–?” and they grow to resent offering gratitude, which isn’t a place you want a partner to be.

This is what I call Gratitude Theft. Squeezing extra gratitude out of a situation, whether it’s paid for or not.

It’s not a horrible crime, just an insidious one. Also, it’s not usually malevolent — just something that can slide in via thoughtlessness and not paying attention to what one is doing over time. So, no harm, no foul, but it’s a good thing to get rid of.

We ALL want to be grateful for our partners and express that gratitude, because our partners rock (well, if they didn’t, why are we hanging around them?), so deciding to not feel grateful or to not express gratitude certainly isn’t any sort of reasonable answer.

Fortunately, there is a cure.

Scenario:
You notice the garbage needs taking out.
You: “Hey, the garbage is full. I’ll take it out tonight after dinner.”
Her: “That would be great.”
You: (recognize that the action is seen as valuable, but you don’t get paid until you do it)

Try this sometime. It can lead to some very interesting results. The first few times someone tried it on me, I found myself rising to some imaginary bait: “What — don’t you TRUST me to do it?” my brain seemed to want to say. If THAT doesn’t tell you you need to re-adjust your business, then you’ve got a lot more work than I did to fix it.

Eventually, I got over it. Mostly. Reinforcement never hurts, though.

Keep your eyes open for breakouts near you.

Back to the Master List of Essays

Surely everyone’s heard of Amber Alerts. Not complicated at all: http://www.amberalert.gov/active.htm. Took me about four seconds to find them via Google, and seven of those were remembering how many “g”‘s were in “Google.”

A lot of people have heard of Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/missing/missing.asp
An easy-enough URL to remember, plus it provides hours of entertaining reading. Took me four seconds to get to the page and type “amber alert” into the search box.

So…

Most of us receive, with sad regularity, urgent “Amber Alert” emails. While certainly there ARE missing children in the world, and a small number of them are, in fact, genuine Amber Alerts, the reality of the situation is that a huge majority of the stuff emailed around in a hurry ISN’T an actual Amber Alert, and is almost certainly not even a missing child.

Even better, because the Internet is just so rockin’, anyone with half a brain can find this out in eight seconds.

When I’ve pointed this out to people, though, they transform it into some weird kind of hostility. The typical response is something like “Are you willing to take a chance? What if it were YOUR child out there? How bad can it be to just pass it on? What — don’t you care about children? Are you some kind of child-murdering bastard that poisons kindergarten water fountains and urinates on the cold lifeless eyes of your infant victims? Fuck you, asshole, I hope you burn in hell and everyone you know gets cancer of the mouth and walks around looking like a human lamprey and spends the rest of their lives weeping bitter, bitter tears…” and so forth. You know, same old, same old.

But there really IS an answer. There really IS a hazard in not spending the handful of seconds checking up on this. The hazard is that propagating false reports inures us to actual missing children — to actual Amber Alerts and other child victims. This is what harm not bothering to take eight seconds can cause. It makes people less likely to pay attention to an ACTUAL Amber Alert.

If you’re not sure, ask yourself this: when you saw the title of this essay, were you tempted to not read it, thinking “Oh crap, another one of those”? Someone who might be in the position to help an actual Amber Alert or missing child might have never seen the Alert, thinking “oh crap, another one of those” and simply deleted it. THAT’S the hazard.

Eight seconds. Tops. Eight seconds to find useful information and to stop bad information. If someone wants to do good, if they truly give a rat’s ass about missing children, in eight seconds, they’ll be all over the Amber Alert site, and their local police site, reading up on ACTUAL missing children. No one wants this information hidden.

Practically no one.

Most people are familiar with the fable of the boy who cried “wolf.” If not, catch up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

In most versions of the story, the boy is merely a little jackass, who gets his just rewards in the end. In some of the more vicious versions, however, it’s not the boy who does the crying out — it’s the wolf. The very clever wolf who knows how many times the village is willing to believe that the shepherd really knows nothing. The very clever wolf who realizes that desensitizing the villagers to cries of “wolf” is a sure ticket to an all-you-can-eat sheep-and-shepherd buffet. That wolf.

That wolf has a vested and keen interest in scaring people until they won’t respond anymore.

That puts a whole different spin on it, now, doesn’t it? What sort of person would want to circumvent, short-circuit, and disempower such a system? What kind of person COULD do that?

Well, who benefits the most from that situation?

The wolf.

Back to the Master List of Essays

When did we stop bothering to take care of our tools and equipment, such that there grew into existence a market for items that were specifically called “heavy duty”?

Why does “heavy duty” basically mean “yesterday’s heavier technology, still using obvious rivets and in many respects far more primitive-looking than what we manufacture now”?

And if it is really yesterday’s technology, why does it cost more? Has “heavy duty” become the new “antique”?

Back to the Master List of Essays

Week five! I hope the Great Mystery of your weekend went well!

If I hit the nail on the head, please do post a testimonial! That would be cool!

• MONDAY, January 26, 2009: The picture looks great. Relax.
• TUESDAY, January 27, 2009: Just call it off. It’s stopped being fun and you both know it.
• WEDNESDAY, January 28, 2009: Self deprecation is a trap. Whenever you feel the urge, compliment someone else instead.
• THURSDAY, January 29, 2009: Keep reading.
• FRIDAY, January 30, 2008: It’s hard to be patient sometimes, but respect that they’re trying. They are.

Another pitch! Has the idea of warning stickers in biology books driven you nuts? Maybe there are a few other books that need warning stickers, too. I’m not gonna say which books, but I’d check the drawers at your nearest hotel… Now’s your chance to buy yourself a pack of usefuls stickers for just such an occasion: 10-pack o’ stickerrific fun.

By the way, in case you didn’t know, you can find copies of our movie The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath online at Amazon.com, as well as the Dream-Quest Collector’s Pack, which includes an autographed copy of the movie, an autographed poster, and two original pages from the storyboards (covered in handwritten notes), also autographed.

Back to the Master List of Essays

I don’t begrudge people their gods, but I think there’s been a terrible mistake somewhere.

The older gods were perfect in their roles as constructs of man, representing the various forces of Nature that were observable and providing endless stories explaining how and why the natural world did what it did. The older gods also offered a unique view of our own moral fabric, cast in various cautionary tales. The old gods, like us, could become angry, frustrated, despondent, lonely, etc. By being this way, the old gods were more human, and by being more human, the old gods offered us moral thresholds we could achieve, with the built-in understanding that if the gods had their frailties, then certainly we were allowed to as well.

This makes complete sense in a mythical way.

But something happened. We seemed to have taken an odd left turn. We’ve arrived at a place where there isn’t a panoply of gods reflecting humanity’s face. We’ve been dropped into a black hole of anti-myth, where there is no connection between humanity and its god.

This god can’t feel anger, fear, or despondency (although it does claim to feel jealousy, but passive-aggressively insists mankind placate it). This god is not connected to the world of human experience.

This god is not used to help explain the rhythms and actions of the natural world, except in the most abstract, impractical way (it’s this way because, uh, that’s the way he wants it). This god is not connected to the natural world.

Finally, this god does not offer any reasonable, achievable moral threshold. Everyone — every thing — is unworthy, sinful, and automatically slated for eternal destruction in a pit of fire, or in some other cataclysmic act of petulant mass destruction. This god is held up as an example of a perfect shining being, incomparable to the built-in filth of mankind. In fact, mankind is so filthy that it simply can’t achieve any sort of reward for behavior. Such a huge and impenetrable god must of necessity offer a huge (and therefore unprovable) reward, and that reward absolutely can not be connected with the actions or deeds of a man (no amount of ‘good deeds’ are sufficient to achieve reward, and a person of lifelong cruelty can easily achieve reward). No wonder, in the face of such a moral contradiction, could a god judge mankind so harshly, yet be so profoundly responsible for inducing that state of chaos. This is clearly an afterlife with no mirrors. This is not a god that has any sort of connection to or understanding of the human moral experience.

This is a turn that does not bode well for a humanity that needs gods connected to and intimate with the human condition. This becomes a crazy causeless universe where the only god in town is willing to reward with eternal bliss murderers who engage in deathbed confessions, and beatifically claims responsibility for the design and development of insects that must blind children to live and reproduce.

But maybe this is a necessary step to approch a sense of the universe and the human condition in a way that doesn’t depend on the supernatural. Maybe this is a transition period where mankind first makes his gods impossible to put up with, before eventually showing them the door.

Maybe this isn’t a left turn, but a death throes of a particular wrinkle in the brain of an animal as it becomes something more than it used to be.

Back to the Master List of Essays

Hope is only unpopular where the preferred coin is misery and despair. It’s one of the few things that mark out human beings from animals, this peculiar blend of optimism and future-modeling. It’s a glimmer of light in the dark, an assurance that things may turn out okay, and a manifestation of the human spirit.

It is not the case that every human endeavor born in hope succeeds, but it is true that no human triumph exists that was not born of hope.

When did being hopeful fall so out of fashion?

I’d like to know.

Back to the Master List of Essays

…because they didn’t bother asking crazy people.

I’ve always been a little puzzled by the folks who have such disdain for scientists. Don’t they want smart people around? Don’t they want smart lawyers? Don’t they want smart doctors?

Why, I wonder, is it that when a scientist who spends a lifetime studying some phenomenon, who engages in peer-reviewed studies, who tries very hard to make as transparent a conclusion as possible… is ignored in favor of people who don’t have professional credibility, who aren’t clear on how they came to their conclusions, and who avoids the hassle of peer-review.

That would be like being at the doctor’s office, and discovering a fast-growing tumor, and having your auto mechanic tell you “Yeah, your doctor claims it’s an indication of cancer, but as far as I can tell, it’s probably a loose fanbelt.”

That would just be silly.

We employ experts because we recognize that they have expertise in their field. These are people who have a deep understanding of a topic, such as law, medicine, or science.

But somehow, for some reason (probably coupled with this whole anti-intellectual kink Americans have going on), we just can’t seem to wrap that same mentality around this one:

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real

The great line from this article is this, from Peter Doran (associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago: “So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.”

Just like a doctor. Just like a lawyer.

Yet there are still a huge number of people who refuse to see it, or even discuss it. A lot of them feel as if there’s some sort of big controversy– a controversy which must somehow reflect some sort of doubt as to the veracity of the information. But this line of thinking makes even less sense. If their doctor said “You have cancer, but if we operate now, we stand a great chance of beating it,” and their auto mechanic said “Smear wax on your belly — you probably just have a cracked fanbelt,” there wouldn’t be any of this “argue the controversy” bullshit. Anyone in their right mind would look the mechanic straight in the eye and say “You are talking out of your ass, boyo.”

So where is this “common sense” when it comes to scientists? Where is this same sense of self-preservation that we exhibit when we demand excellent doctors and excellent lawyers, but are willing to pay attention to any crackpot who can “argue the controversy”? If a doctor tells us to do something or we’ll die, we make that change in our lives. If a lawyer tells us to do something or we’ll be sued, we make that change in our lives.

Why do we treat scientists so shittily, then?

I really want to know.

Back to the Master List of Essays

Week four! I hope the Great Mystery of your weekend went well!

If I hit the nail on the head, please do post a testimonial! That would be cool!

• MONDAY, January 19, 2009: You’ll feel better by the end of the week.
• TUESDAY, January 20, 2009: Your idea won’t work. Sorry.
• WEDNESDAY, January 21, 2009: Accept the invitation.
• THURSDAY, January 22, 2009: Your turn to reach out.
• FRIDAY, January 23, 2008: Wash your cup out.

By the way, in case you didn’t know, you can find copies of our movie The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath online at Amazon.com, as well as the Dream-Quest Collector’s Pack, which includes an autographed copy of the movie, an autographed poster, and two original pages from the storyboards (covered in handwritten notes), also autographed.

Back to the Master List of Essays

What the heck is a Meta-Contrast, you might ask?

Well, here’s an example.

Say you had a Recreational Flame Thrower. Mmmmm, yummy.

Now say you were in the middle of a Monkey Knife Fight. Mmmmmm, dangerous.

That’s a contrast.

Now put ‘em together — say you’re in a room with a Monkey Knife Fight and you have a Recreational Flamethrower. Very, very dangerous!

Yet cooler than the sum of its parts.

THAT’S a meta-contrast.

Back to the Master List of Essays

Third week! I hope the Great Mystery of your weekend went well!

If I hit the nail on the head, please do post a testimonial! That would be cool!

• MONDAY, January 12, 2009: Choose strawberry, if possible.
• TUESDAY, January 13, 2009: It’s just a cookie.
• WEDNESDAY, January 14, 2009: No, no, no, you’re fine. You made a good decision. Don’t worry about it.
• THURSDAY, January 15, 2009: Your ex isn’t evil. It was just a mismatch. Get off your high horse.
• FRIDAY, January 16, 2008: Write for a half hour and see what happens.

Back to the Master List of Essays

I think one of the greatest personal conflicts any of us has to face – and we do so on a regular basis – is the conflict between what we observe, and what we wish we would be observing.

We can’t help it – our perception of the world is constructed of models in our heads, shapes and cause-and-event chains that we guess at, that we make up, or that we hope for. This is how we allow ourselves to have a futures, hopes, and dreams. And sure as a McDonald’s shake doesn’t actually melt, we regularly come into proof positive that our guesses were wrong. We regularly encounter a contradiction between what we wanted to see and what we actually see.

On one hand, we could get resistant about it, and insist that other people and other phenomena obey our imaginations, and act the way we want. This rejects all souls but ours. That’s probably fine if you’re a country such as China, but without an arsenal of nuclear weapons at your disposal, us ordinary folks have to cope with the disjoint.

On the other hand, we could be all Super-Yoga-Zen-Power-Monkey and accept every moment purely and singularly as it is, being blissfully free of hopes and dreams and a sense of the future. This will kill the internal soul – the one that depends on those hopes and dreams, the one that needs a future.

The ticket, it seems, may lie in finding a way of creating a mental future, a model of those around us, and working with this in a relatively normal healthy way – but to have a tag attached mentally. This tag is a purely mental object that identifies the model as “hypothetical.” A guess. A cloud-shaped sketch where time will paint an actual picture soon.

“Guess” doesn’t have to mean it’s a bad guess. In fact, good guesses are their own rewards. The better off you are at guessing what’s going on in the near future, at guessing what the people around you are like, the more relaxing your life will probably be.

The best part is that as you observe people more, your guesses get better. An added bonus is that you can “cheat” by asking them. Most people are pretty good authorities on themselves.

This keeps your mental crashes few and mild. You probably want that.

Back to the Master List of Essays

More fortunes for this week! On the weekends, it’s up to you to make your own Fate. Think of the weekends as A Great Mystery.

If I hit the nail on the head, please do post a testimonial! That would be cool!

• MONDAY, January 5, 2009: You’re being lied to and you know it. Don’t be an ass about it, though.
• TUESDAY, January 6, 2009: Three shots this morning. You’ll need them.
• WEDNESDAY, January 7, 2009: Tell them you miss them. It’s not a commitment or anything.
• THURSDAY, January 8, 2009: The number you’re trying to figure out is 27.
• FRIDAY, January 9, 2008: Listen to the whole song. It’s important.

Back to the Master List of Essays

It’s peculiar, and telling, that there’s this concept called “MILF” yet not the reciprocal, “FILF,” at least not as far as I can tell, in popular culture.

Is it that the “FILF” is unknown/unattractive, or ubiquitous, or simply a meaningless concept?

And if none of this makes sense to you, move along…

Back to the Master List of Essays