I went to a workshop about how women could better negotiate their salaries - the whole $0.77 that women make per dollar that men do seems to be more complex than just some kind of overt discrimination against women. Women apparently are less likely to negotiate unless they're doing it on behalf of someone (or thinking about the whole group). It's an interesting phenomenon.
Essentially women will perform/negotiate better when they are thinking beyond themselves. I wonder if the whole maternal instinct thing has anything to do with it.
It's interesting to me that people often seem to like being take care of. I mean for obvious reason, I understand why that's the case but I can't help but to feel like something is wrong with me when I want to be the one taking care of myself.
Perhaps this is a poor example, but often times, people have talked about how they like it when someone cooks for them or how they won't really cook well for themselves unless they are cooking for someone else. I love cooking for myself and for others. But perhaps it's because I love cooking that I can say that when others find the task burdensome.
I wonder if it has something to do with me having a method to what seems to be my madness and I don't like it when people mess with my processes. Perhaps this is why I find people who enter my space without permission to be invasive.
Humans are meant to be social creatures, but I think that to a certain extent, one must be able to live independently to contribute to that social aspect. The idea that a team that is made up of only strong players comes to mind (kind of like the teams in Naruto! :D).
Eh. I don't know where I'm going with this. I guess with women, it almost seems like there is an impossibility to this aspect of independence. Does that mean that women should be more selfish when it comes to negotiation? And what does that say about women or the perception of women or the societal influence on women when they "inherently" seem to do better when it's not for them? Is there some kind of underlying thinking in society that women must be selfless, giving, and sacrificial?
Actually, I suppose there is. The very epitome of motherhood are those amazing but somewhat self-defeating images, news stories, and what have you that show how great women are when they fight for their children. How come we never see that with men? Or do we and I've just missed them? Hm.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Monday, March 23, 2015
Time is a luxury
After World War II, people started to have more free time because of technological advances. With more leisure time, leisure activities became a salable commodity and (after poorly condensing 60ish years of history) here we are today.
Games, blogs, social media websites, etc. that are designed to "help" us actually make us waste more time looking at them. In trying to go running, I spend 30 minutes downloading and "researching" apps that will help me track my run or give me a training menu to optimize my run (why don't I just go running and do the research later?). We fill the little gaps in our day with information that may not even be useful and suddenly, we're busy without even realizing it (where does all the time go, I always wonder).
I've come to realize that leisure activities are exactly that: when one has leisure. However, we've flipped this phenomenon and leisure activities have started to fill up the day when work needs to be done. There's quite obviously a balance required for this (one cannot always work and one cannot always be passing time with leisure activities unless one has the financial means to do so) but there's a problem when one tries to pepper the day with leisure activities when one does not have the availability to do so.
The prevalence of these "time-wasters" is indicative of a displacement of what is important in life, whether it is work, chores, homework, etc. We've forgotten that things need to be done first before we can relax. Or at least I have.
Time can be seen as a commodity. In line with the idea that time is money, how are you spending your time? What is your day filled with? I feel like this shows what is important to you and more importantly, what creates you. If you are not what you do, then what are you?
There are flaws to this way of thinking but I wonder, if I spend all my time playing Tetris Battle, all I am is a master at Tetris Battle. What have I gained from it? Spatial reasoning? How does that help me or society? The way society views people is by their utility and for someone like me, I am useless to society and undeserving of any compensation for time that I spent poorly (because I have not contributed to society in any significant way).
So then, the question becomes, how do I (you, we) spend our time more wisely? I think that I need to realize that I need to get the things that are important done first. I keep forgetting that for some reason. Focus on what's important to me, whether that's the really annoying daily tasks of doing the dishes, putting down that game of Tetris to talk to a friend, or writing the paper that I'm stuck on (or the story that I have swimming in my head).
Replace the trash with what is needed and simplify life to only the necessities. Leisure time is a luxury because time can only be spent (and never gained back).
Games, blogs, social media websites, etc. that are designed to "help" us actually make us waste more time looking at them. In trying to go running, I spend 30 minutes downloading and "researching" apps that will help me track my run or give me a training menu to optimize my run (why don't I just go running and do the research later?). We fill the little gaps in our day with information that may not even be useful and suddenly, we're busy without even realizing it (where does all the time go, I always wonder).
I've come to realize that leisure activities are exactly that: when one has leisure. However, we've flipped this phenomenon and leisure activities have started to fill up the day when work needs to be done. There's quite obviously a balance required for this (one cannot always work and one cannot always be passing time with leisure activities unless one has the financial means to do so) but there's a problem when one tries to pepper the day with leisure activities when one does not have the availability to do so.
The prevalence of these "time-wasters" is indicative of a displacement of what is important in life, whether it is work, chores, homework, etc. We've forgotten that things need to be done first before we can relax. Or at least I have.
Time can be seen as a commodity. In line with the idea that time is money, how are you spending your time? What is your day filled with? I feel like this shows what is important to you and more importantly, what creates you. If you are not what you do, then what are you?
There are flaws to this way of thinking but I wonder, if I spend all my time playing Tetris Battle, all I am is a master at Tetris Battle. What have I gained from it? Spatial reasoning? How does that help me or society? The way society views people is by their utility and for someone like me, I am useless to society and undeserving of any compensation for time that I spent poorly (because I have not contributed to society in any significant way).
So then, the question becomes, how do I (you, we) spend our time more wisely? I think that I need to realize that I need to get the things that are important done first. I keep forgetting that for some reason. Focus on what's important to me, whether that's the really annoying daily tasks of doing the dishes, putting down that game of Tetris to talk to a friend, or writing the paper that I'm stuck on (or the story that I have swimming in my head).
Replace the trash with what is needed and simplify life to only the necessities. Leisure time is a luxury because time can only be spent (and never gained back).
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
What I think about when I read my writing
I say this time and time again, but I have a weird fascination with my writing and my thoughts. Perhaps others feel the same way so it may not be so weird, but I find my own writing, which is a ordered manifestation of my thoughts, to be pretty interesting.
I just read a doodle* that I wrote two years ago makes no sense whatsoever. Well, I think it does, but the way it progresses and what I'm trying to get at is so vague that I feel like it could be read a hundred different ways by a hundred different people, and everyone would have a valid point. And I wonder, where in the world did I come up with that?
It's a weird feeling when the writing or thoughts that you've extracted don't feel to be completely your own. I think too, what's interesting, is this idea of audience. Who am I writing to? A future me? My "readership," however paltry?
In the end, it is to a future me, but at least with this blog, it's tempered by the fact that it's public (so I try to polish a tad more than I do with my doodles...).
*Doodles are my private thought journals. Some I end up sharing, others are just plain incoherent, and yet others really are for no one to see except a future me.
I just read a doodle* that I wrote two years ago makes no sense whatsoever. Well, I think it does, but the way it progresses and what I'm trying to get at is so vague that I feel like it could be read a hundred different ways by a hundred different people, and everyone would have a valid point. And I wonder, where in the world did I come up with that?
It's a weird feeling when the writing or thoughts that you've extracted don't feel to be completely your own. I think too, what's interesting, is this idea of audience. Who am I writing to? A future me? My "readership," however paltry?
In the end, it is to a future me, but at least with this blog, it's tempered by the fact that it's public (so I try to polish a tad more than I do with my doodles...).
*Doodles are my private thought journals. Some I end up sharing, others are just plain incoherent, and yet others really are for no one to see except a future me.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Suffering
"I can't believe in God because I can't explain the suffering in the world."
"I'm more of a believer in science."
Same person said this and yes, I was eavesdropping on a conversation I shouldn't have been, but I couldn't help but to be slightly frustrated at these statements.
When did God ever say that there wouldn't be suffering? Where in the Bible does it say that?
The idea that suffering should not exist in this world and that there is a god who is out there that will take it away is a purely Western cultural construct. In America, in times of hardship, the prayer often goes, "Lord, please take this suffering away." In other countries (or perhaps it was just this one country - I forget which one though), the prayer goes, "Lord, please help me get through this suffering."
There is an expectation in Western culture (or was it just in America?) that there should be no suffering and when it comes down to it, life should be easy. Yet there's something inherently wrong with this kind of thinking, especially in light of cliche phrases like "no pain, no gain," "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger," etc. Suffering is sometimes necessary in order for a person to grow. Training for a marathon can be painful but also rewarding. Exercising and dieting (i.e. creating a healthy lifestyle) can be painful for people who have certain types of addictions or extenuating circumstances that make it really difficult for them to cultivate that which is good for them. However, to say that one should remove the cause of suffering (especially in the cases mentioned) seems ridiculous and even wrong.
To extend the argument then, how can one say that the suffering, hardship, or problem that a person is going through is something that should be taken away when no one can say how it'll change, develop, or refine the person? Isn't that a little presumptuous? To bring God into the picture, isn't it also to question God's methods?
I suppose the counterargument could mention something about how it doesn't have to be in that manner, but from my experience, people can be so stubborn that only something as jarring as some kind of suffering will change the person. And sometimes, even that does not change the person for the better. So no, I don't think that taking suffering away will actually address the issue.
This goes into the idea of free will because humans have autonomy, which is precisely why things get so messy, imo.
Anyway, my point is that the perception that suffering is somehow bad or wrong is flawed. Now, this is not to diminish suffering and say that suffering is an easy thing to go through. It sucks. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be viewed with a take-it-away-because-no-one-should-go-through-anything-bad kind of attitude.
To address the second statement, the very thinking that science and religion are diametrically opposed is incredibly archaic thinking that has roots in the Enlightenment period (what is that, like the 1600s?). Go to the upper echelons of science, and they will tell you otherwise. Go to the most learned doctors in medicine and they will tell you that they still cannot determine why sometimes certain illnesses and cancers are cured without treatment (because medicine is not an exact science). Obviously, there are opposing arguments, but I feel like the statement that a person "believes" in science and not religion has (again) inherent flaws. In saying this, I also feel like the person is saying that science and philosophy are separate and irreconcilable because what else is religion but philosophies on how to live one's life? If this is truly the case, then what does science say about morality or of how to treat others? The basic idea (ideologies, perhaps?) of science then is that it is good and right for humans to act purely out of self-interest and that greed is simply a by-product of survival. And here we have the problem because such people also say that we shouldn't suffer, yet by believing only in science, humans will be the very cause of such suffering.
I think I've oversimplified the argument in many ways and there are many holes that need to be filled but I'm le tired so we shall stop here.
I'm probably guilty of similar faults as this person who so glibly spouted such ideological inconsistencies but I think that it bothers me, because I've gone through the trouble of reconciling such things (though I'm not quite all there yet and there will probably be more to be reconciled in the future).
"I'm more of a believer in science."
Same person said this and yes, I was eavesdropping on a conversation I shouldn't have been, but I couldn't help but to be slightly frustrated at these statements.
When did God ever say that there wouldn't be suffering? Where in the Bible does it say that?
The idea that suffering should not exist in this world and that there is a god who is out there that will take it away is a purely Western cultural construct. In America, in times of hardship, the prayer often goes, "Lord, please take this suffering away." In other countries (or perhaps it was just this one country - I forget which one though), the prayer goes, "Lord, please help me get through this suffering."
There is an expectation in Western culture (or was it just in America?) that there should be no suffering and when it comes down to it, life should be easy. Yet there's something inherently wrong with this kind of thinking, especially in light of cliche phrases like "no pain, no gain," "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger," etc. Suffering is sometimes necessary in order for a person to grow. Training for a marathon can be painful but also rewarding. Exercising and dieting (i.e. creating a healthy lifestyle) can be painful for people who have certain types of addictions or extenuating circumstances that make it really difficult for them to cultivate that which is good for them. However, to say that one should remove the cause of suffering (especially in the cases mentioned) seems ridiculous and even wrong.
To extend the argument then, how can one say that the suffering, hardship, or problem that a person is going through is something that should be taken away when no one can say how it'll change, develop, or refine the person? Isn't that a little presumptuous? To bring God into the picture, isn't it also to question God's methods?
I suppose the counterargument could mention something about how it doesn't have to be in that manner, but from my experience, people can be so stubborn that only something as jarring as some kind of suffering will change the person. And sometimes, even that does not change the person for the better. So no, I don't think that taking suffering away will actually address the issue.
This goes into the idea of free will because humans have autonomy, which is precisely why things get so messy, imo.
Anyway, my point is that the perception that suffering is somehow bad or wrong is flawed. Now, this is not to diminish suffering and say that suffering is an easy thing to go through. It sucks. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be viewed with a take-it-away-because-no-one-should-go-through-anything-bad kind of attitude.
To address the second statement, the very thinking that science and religion are diametrically opposed is incredibly archaic thinking that has roots in the Enlightenment period (what is that, like the 1600s?). Go to the upper echelons of science, and they will tell you otherwise. Go to the most learned doctors in medicine and they will tell you that they still cannot determine why sometimes certain illnesses and cancers are cured without treatment (because medicine is not an exact science). Obviously, there are opposing arguments, but I feel like the statement that a person "believes" in science and not religion has (again) inherent flaws. In saying this, I also feel like the person is saying that science and philosophy are separate and irreconcilable because what else is religion but philosophies on how to live one's life? If this is truly the case, then what does science say about morality or of how to treat others? The basic idea (ideologies, perhaps?) of science then is that it is good and right for humans to act purely out of self-interest and that greed is simply a by-product of survival. And here we have the problem because such people also say that we shouldn't suffer, yet by believing only in science, humans will be the very cause of such suffering.
I think I've oversimplified the argument in many ways and there are many holes that need to be filled but I'm le tired so we shall stop here.
I'm probably guilty of similar faults as this person who so glibly spouted such ideological inconsistencies but I think that it bothers me, because I've gone through the trouble of reconciling such things (though I'm not quite all there yet and there will probably be more to be reconciled in the future).
Monday, March 9, 2015
Follow-through and perfectionism
When one makes a goal, one should do their best to achieve said goal.
There's this idea of follow-through with this. A goal is a projection and in some ways, a hope.
"I will run a marathon."
"I will lose weight."
"I will stop playing Tetris Battle once the energy bar runs out."
To follow through with what one sets out to do (or hopes to accomplish) is probably the most important part of goal setting (the most obvious, yet the least acknowledged, perhaps?).
This is where I fall apart. I'm so good at setting goals and setting up plans to achieve said goals, and then I don't follow through.
I'm bad at following up with people too.
"Did you remember to...?"
"Are you going to...?"
"I'll call you back when I get home." (and then I don't)
I usually attribute it to distractions and forgetfulness and I wonder if there's something else to it. Perhaps I can fall back on the ol' excuse of my self-diagnosed mild ADHD.
Perhaps it has something to do with being a perfectionist.
The steps I set out to do have not perfectly manifested in the way that was planned and thus, I cannot move on to the final step of the process and follow through with/achieve the goal I set out to do.
I wonder if being a discouraged perfectionist (term taken from Kevin Lemans' The Birth Order Book, which I found to be an interesting read) has anything to do with it.
그냥 대충하고 넘어가 (Just half-ass it and get it done and over it) becomes a mantra for me when I don't have time but it grates against my standards for the quality of work I hold myself to.
There's never enough time in the world to do all the things we want.
그냥 대충하고 넘어갈까?
(Should I just half-ass it and get it done and over with?)
There's this idea of follow-through with this. A goal is a projection and in some ways, a hope.
"I will run a marathon."
"I will lose weight."
"I will stop playing Tetris Battle once the energy bar runs out."
To follow through with what one sets out to do (or hopes to accomplish) is probably the most important part of goal setting (the most obvious, yet the least acknowledged, perhaps?).
This is where I fall apart. I'm so good at setting goals and setting up plans to achieve said goals, and then I don't follow through.
I'm bad at following up with people too.
"Did you remember to...?"
"Are you going to...?"
"I'll call you back when I get home." (and then I don't)
I usually attribute it to distractions and forgetfulness and I wonder if there's something else to it. Perhaps I can fall back on the ol' excuse of my self-diagnosed mild ADHD.
Perhaps it has something to do with being a perfectionist.
The steps I set out to do have not perfectly manifested in the way that was planned and thus, I cannot move on to the final step of the process and follow through with/achieve the goal I set out to do.
I wonder if being a discouraged perfectionist (term taken from Kevin Lemans' The Birth Order Book, which I found to be an interesting read) has anything to do with it.
그냥 대충하고 넘어가 (Just half-ass it and get it done and over it) becomes a mantra for me when I don't have time but it grates against my standards for the quality of work I hold myself to.
There's never enough time in the world to do all the things we want.
그냥 대충하고 넘어갈까?
(Should I just half-ass it and get it done and over with?)
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Language and Culture
Nebulous concepts that embody so much.
Nebulous because they defy simple definition. I mean there's always going to be the dictionary definition, but what language, culture, and a host of other ideas embody is hard to pin down because it is constantly changing. There are rules but language and culture are creative. There can be a ripple in the rules that permanently change the thing.
I see concepts (ideas?) such as language and culture as clay or something a little more elastic where a nudge may cause a ripple, but a strong enough force (whether one big force or tiny and repetitive force in one location) changes the shape of the thing. Slang enters the realm of dictionary language and is eventually absorbed into the "norm."
These things are three-dimensional and change according to circumstance. It's fascinating.
Nebulous because they defy simple definition. I mean there's always going to be the dictionary definition, but what language, culture, and a host of other ideas embody is hard to pin down because it is constantly changing. There are rules but language and culture are creative. There can be a ripple in the rules that permanently change the thing.
I see concepts (ideas?) such as language and culture as clay or something a little more elastic where a nudge may cause a ripple, but a strong enough force (whether one big force or tiny and repetitive force in one location) changes the shape of the thing. Slang enters the realm of dictionary language and is eventually absorbed into the "norm."
These things are three-dimensional and change according to circumstance. It's fascinating.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Poetry is evocative
So many thoughts roaming around in my head!
There are too many thought projects to synthesize into coherency.. I shall list a few to at least get something down.
1. The perception of people's states as stationary or robust (is that the word?) and how it affects another person's attitude toward them.
2. Life, attitudes, and our surroundings is all about synthesis.
3. Cooking, for me, does not end with a "finished dish." Like reading, I am in constant dialogue with my cooking.
4. The illusion in certainty.
5. Poetry's ability to evoke emotion with its outward simplicity and underlying complexity. (And I do love wordplay).
Bah, I'll never get through them all.
Been motivated now that I'm pretty much over my cold (there's a lingering cough, as if to remind me of my weakened state).
Poetry makes me poetic. Rather, it makes me enjoy wordplay.
Getting back into writing, at least fiction. Now to turn that energy towards academic writing! It really is like an imposing wall, just looming over me in this very domineering and impregnable fashion.
Perhaps it is all in my head. I feel like my thoughts are bouncing in 100 different directions. We shall see where this leads us (because each of my thoughts has become a person, turning me, into a collective we).
There are too many thought projects to synthesize into coherency.. I shall list a few to at least get something down.
1. The perception of people's states as stationary or robust (is that the word?) and how it affects another person's attitude toward them.
2. Life, attitudes, and our surroundings is all about synthesis.
3. Cooking, for me, does not end with a "finished dish." Like reading, I am in constant dialogue with my cooking.
4. The illusion in certainty.
5. Poetry's ability to evoke emotion with its outward simplicity and underlying complexity. (And I do love wordplay).
Bah, I'll never get through them all.
Been motivated now that I'm pretty much over my cold (there's a lingering cough, as if to remind me of my weakened state).
Poetry makes me poetic. Rather, it makes me enjoy wordplay.
Getting back into writing, at least fiction. Now to turn that energy towards academic writing! It really is like an imposing wall, just looming over me in this very domineering and impregnable fashion.
Perhaps it is all in my head. I feel like my thoughts are bouncing in 100 different directions. We shall see where this leads us (because each of my thoughts has become a person, turning me, into a collective we).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)