How can you not love this all-female indie rock band?
Grooveshark sure is a gem. Along with the other sometimes hardcore sometimes sultry bands Metric, and Hunter Valentine, I discovered another band that already has a line-up in my work-out, studying, and hanging out playlists: Sick of Sarah. Great vocals, harmonies, and a rocking set-up… and they sure have the perfect image. Part of my confusion was, how in the world are they not more popular?
Part of the issue is that they constantly have to face the public perception of being a band with members who are openly lesbian or queer. The band constantly tries to make their music appealing to the larger community, embracing the LGBT fanbase, but singing for the mainstream community. Another blog post has a great interview with the opinions of Abisha Uhl, the lead singer.
And the band does savvy things, their last great album 2205, went platinum incredibly quick. The secret? Releasing it through bittorrent, where users could easily download all their songs for free.
But still, it bothers me a little bit that such great talent will be ignored by some through a simple label — some of their members’ sexuality. Don’t get me wrong, I’m as clean-cut of a straight guy there is, but living and communicating with those associating themselves with the LGBT community has really opened my eyes to the travails that they often have to face. Sure, the prejudice is not so transparent, and living in Canada, on paper the community is fully accepted. But there is always the extra stretch and extra pain that must be proven that one is more than just a label.
As a scientist, it is a huge concern of mine as well — just as Sick of Sarah is facing in the music industry, many people like to pigeon-hole those who are in science. If someone has a theoretical physics background, they are a theoretical physicist and can only contribute to matters of that sort. Likewise, someone in sedimentary geology should only be allowed to contribute to their specified field. I think this is the exact opposite of what should occur. In issues such as climate change, it is of utmost importance of communication within disciplines, and each scientist with a specialized field can contribute to the larger concept. Perhaps the key to the biggest problems is held by someone in an unrelated field, in fact, I think that’s how innovation is even derived.
And consequently, the fact that Sick of Sarah is indeed not a mainstream band contributes to the fact that they can be innovators in the music industry, and that they lend a new perspective that is valuable for everybody in their music.
For this, I hope that Sick of Sarah gains as much success as possible to prove to the world, that no matter the sexuality, and no matter what one decides as their personal life choices, talent is talent, and this should be appreciated.
I’m glad to be back here on infinitevector after spending the majority of 2011 working as my alter-ego “The Wannabe Fashionista” on www.thewannabefashionista.com. I had been working on my app as part of the Next 36, and one of the marketing off-shoots was this fashion blog I ran jointly with a real fashionista. Through it, I understood a greater insight into the world of blogging, and was able to explore a bit of my ‘fashionable’ side.
With that being said, I have great ideas on how to revamp this blog, and I’m hoping to get some of my older readers back, and attracting some new readers! Stay tuned, as for now, enjoy one of my former video blogs as part of the entrepreneurship program I was part of this summer:
Two of my fav survivors from one of my fav seasons
An old classic: Survivor Amazon. Rob Cesternino thought he had the game locked up, he had the strongest alliance, the side alliances with Butch and Matt. Everything… then Jenna started winning immunity challenges, took the game off balance, and ended up as one of my favorite winners of Survivor. The social dynamics of Survivor continues to interest me and excite me.
Exam season has cut my commitment to the blog, but I’m starting to see this as more of an outlet than anything, so expect some more posts over the next few days. As for this post, I’m re-posting an assignment I submitted for my “iSci” program.
As an avid watcher of the reality game show Survivor I always try to simplify social dynamics to find some underlying laws. Perhaps social science is not best fit to be viewed with a scientific perspective, but it is tough to discount certain patterns. For example, every single challenge won, argument at camp, and member lost, significantly alters the pace of the game. In Survivor, each member must be voted one-by-one until there is a sole survivor. This entire concept of survival permeates the scientific world, and relates to each of our Projects this year.
Looking into universal thermodynamics, after the Big Bang, the universe was considerably homogenous. By simple probabilistic fluctuations of particles, there grew certain over-dense and under-dense regions (Ferreira and Magueijo, 2008). As time progressed, the dense regions became denser, each eventually building up to be characterized as larger galactic clusters today. One small change creates an entirely larger phenomenon overall. Thinking of social interactions, that one chance occurrence can dictate the entire flow of the game.
Taking a perspective from biochemistry, there lies the issue of chirality, where because certain organisms preferred the left-handedness of amino acids, it dominated (Popa, 2009). The handedness was only compatible with itself, so, because they are equally likely. This is useful in astrobiological surveys when attempting to analyze past life, where handedness may have an entirely different signature. However, on our planet, only the one type of chirality dominated and survived.
Perhaps "Survival of the Fittest" isnt as archaic as Darwins aged theories may suggest. Those "fit," more "attractive," etc., always seem to progress further in society. In fact it is an accepted norm!
In the ecological world, the adage by Darwin, “Survival of the Fittest,” is common, and it holds true in many cases of speciation (Rundle and Nosil, 2005). In Survivor, a social game, the winner is able to adapt to their surroundings, manage their competitors, and ensure they keep themselves healthy. A successful species is also one that can adjust to the realized niche within their settings, find a positive source of resources, and reduce the effect of predators.
Taking a stance from an Earth History perspective, when there is an unexplained phenomenon such as how mountains are formed, individuals are quick to form many theories. One by one, they are refuted and analyzed until the one the best serves as a functional theory remains. The parsing through ideas, where research from one idea conflicts with another tightly links with the systematic disposal of individuals in the game of Survivor.
In the quantum mechanical world, one can observe the effects of the Supersymmetry Model, where certain particles have been lost permanently after the Big Bang, paving the way for a subset of particles to dominate. Studies at the LHC have attempted to refind these initial particles and how they have contributed to the evolution of our planet (Konar et al., 2010). In Survivor, the winner is only characterized by those who helped them reach the point, and their status as the Sole Survivor is inherently linked with those who helped them get there, just as we are attempting to rediscover the earliest particles.
Lastly, in neuroscience, our brain functions in a way where we only retain the information needed and is relevant. Memories without linkages and synaptic connections fade away over time, leaving those most important as the surviving memories (Whalley, 2007). In this sense, memories, which characterize us as humans and our personality are tightly linked with a battle of survival on how the basic framework of the brain interacts.
Consequently, those hours I waste watching Survivor has provided me with a perspective that I can apply to science. Perhaps the world is not characterized by competition, but with this web set in my mind, it is easier for me to find real value in many concepts.
References
Ferriera, P.G., & Magueijo, J. (2008). Observing the temperature of the big bang through large scale structure. Physical Review D, 78(6): 061301.
Konar, P., Matchev, K.T., Park, M., Sarangi, G.K. (2010). How to Look for Supersymmetry under the LHC Lamppost. Physical Review Letters, 105(22): 221801.
Popa, R. (2009). Amino Acids and the Asymmetry of Life. Astrobiology, 9(7): 696.
Is talent still out there? And is talent inherently corruptible?
What is talent? I don’t want to parse through dictionary definitions, as they never seem to tell the full story of the meaning and background of a word. With shows like ‘America’s Got Talent,’ and high school “Talent Shows,’ which usually degenerates into mere popularity contests, I feel the word is more overused as ever.
Let’s take Christina Aguilera for instance, her vocals without question are brilliant. And remembering the hype she had since she was a child and as a young adult, Christina definitely had talent. Her contribution to Mulan, with her song Reflection still remains one of my favourites. And through it all, she has been able to keep her life on the level. Sure she has had a few incidences, including the recent flub at the Super Bowl, but ultimately she remains a real inspiration to children, and though her image has radically changed, she has an undeniable talent. Below I’ve posted my favourite Aguilera song, Hurt:
However, how can one decisively find and define talent? And does talent really exist? It’s something that’s tough to determine, and something that I constantly question within myself. For example, in high school I performed ‘stand-up comedy’ at the talent show. I would hardly consider myself to have a knack in comedy, yet there I was, showcasing my talent. Where is that dividing line between talent and hard work and persistence. And what if we really do have no talents, should we feel handicapped in life? I think it’s something we all ask ourselves as we move forward with our lives from high school, college, and university, trying to see where our career lies and if it falls in line with whatever natural talents we have. But sometimes when you think talent doesn’t exist, something comes out of your way and surprises you.
Recently, in the Globe and Mail, I came across an article about Heather Russell, a 10 year old girl from Toronto who was just signed by Simon Cowell and is currently working with the same music producer who found Lady Gaga. She’s also credited for writing all of her own songs and music! No small feat for a local girl. So I couldn’t help youtubing her right when I got home, so I’ll let you pass your own judgment:
Seeing her reminds me that talent exists. There’s something natural and raw that transcends hard work and determination. It reminds me that we should all search ourselves to find that hidden talent, perhaps it’s somewhere we don’t even expect. As I go on with my life, I refuse to close any doors, and walk through any door that opens itself up for me. Perhaps it can be perceived as a fickle, carefree attitude. But no, I believe it takes a real ambitious and risk-taking attitude to follow a new path, and ultimately it’s the only way to discover yourself and consequently that hidden talent.
Life. It’s tough. My life was going pretty well, but sometimes you get blindsided, sometimes you face impossible situations, and sometimes you just have to pick those pieces back up.
And that’s what life is about. Making mistakes. St. Augustine of Hippo said it best nearly 2000 years ago with ‘errare humanum est.‘ To err is human, and to be human is to make mistakes. How else can we learn in our lives, how else can we navigate ourselves through our personal indirect journey. And so is it OK to set ourselves up to those mistakes? Is it OK, to proverbial play with fire?
It’s neurologically tied in the brain to have a reflex reaction whenever one touches fire. The neurons quickly act and force you to remove the hand from the fire, it’s really the whole mechanism of pain in the body. Pain exists to tell you to not do it again. So why then should one subject themselves to emotional pain, psychological distress, and proverbial ‘heartbreak?’ It’s an interesting question. And perhaps nobody embodies this question more than Britney Spears. Playing with her really is like playing with fire, and I keep that exact same picture of her above in my vision book to constantly remind myself of how every day, life is about playing with fire.
But is she really as exuberant, crazy, and unstable as the media suggests? My perception of her permanently changed after reading Neil Strauss’s memoirs on his time as a ‘pick-up artist,’ called “The Game”, where he learned a more private, vulnerable, and real side of Britney Spears. What’s behind the celebrity? It’s always just a human trying to navigate their own lives. But one two lives meet, sometimes there’s a problem. The psychological individuals can be stable, but sociologically, sparks can fly. The cavemen knew that all it took was two dull, ordinary rocks to be able to light a flame.
It's easy to understand why Britney Spears is so desirable
Enter Kevin Federline, nothing more than one of those dull rocks entering more than a potentially volatile situation. I think he knew it best when he titled his first rap album “Playing with Fire.” He got what every man desired: the hottest girl, the archetype for the innocent girl bad, the secret desire of every married man. The entire world was jealous of the mere background dancer from rag turned to A-List celebrity boyfriend with riches. But behind the scenes, I can’t imagine what he’s been through. What seems to be happy and perfect, often has a dark side, and as the scene turned out, Spears became crazy (who can’t remember the shaving of the head incident), and through it all K-Fed gained full custody of the children, and proved that unlike Britney’s song “Piece of Me,” he really is the ‘exceptional father.’
Kevin Federline must have been through hell, but did playing with fire really pay off? Well, look at where he is today. He’s still a celebrity, making tonnes of money from the divorce to this day, and sure he’s struggling with his weight, but he wanted in the spotlight, and he got into the spotlight. Perhaps their marriage was meant to fail since the start, and Federline just simply played his cards right to ensure his future success. Being able to pin John Cena, the WWE champion at the time on Monday Night Raw really showed how much he had accomplished.
So what? I think Federline was really able to pull all the negative energy: court battles, negative press, and all to really make a change in his life and gain from the relationship. But sometimes I’m not even sure if I was the Federline of the relationship, as much as I wouldn’t like to admit it, I may have been more of the Spears. Having it all and sacrificing it for a bit for what I thought was a real relationship, and then having to find that old me back through the ruins.
Maybe I listened to Spears a little too much. I treat her song “Overprotected,” as a spiritual prophecy, I can never forget the lyric “I need to make mistakes just to learn who I am, and I don’t want to feel so damn protected.” I hate that feeling of constraint, control, and oppression. As cheesy as it sounds, I want to break free, and just do what I want regardless of what other people want or think. I feel like this was part of the reason why I entered a relationship, simply put, I felt like it was what I wanted, but the exact reason in which the relationship fell apart, I wanted to do what I wanted, and at some philosophical point unwilling to compromise.
And now I listen to her song again to try to break free from those lingering feelings and bringing my life back together. Yes it sucks, being broken up with sucks, especially when there was no tangible reason, but c’est la vie, que sera sera, and any other French expression about moving on that applies to this case.
But I still think, is it worth it to make mistakes. Is it worth it to pursue passions while neglecting reason and sense? Hearing about the controversy in Britain about the purported vaccine-autism link has simply disgusted me. Simply, a head scientist published a flawed report about how the MMR-vaccine had a positive correlation to autism. A completely false, and proven to be fabricated report, and it ended up causing outbreaks of measles and mumps once again from worried parents listening to faulty science (a completely preventable circumstance!). What Dr. Wakefield did when publishing the report is absolutely deplorable. He had a bias, a passion in preventing autism, and so he muddled reports to make his viewpoint prominent. As a scientist, this is exactly what you cannot do in the world.
So why should I be allowed to make mistakes in my personal life? If I am scientist through and through, I should be more cautious, and always use that scientific method to guide my thought process. Or should I? I doubt Britney had any inkling of science when she was able to bounce back and produce her latest number: “Hold it against me.” I doubt Kevin cared about anyone but himself and his children when he walked in his indirect path to success. I also doubt my ex used any scientific grading scheme when she decided to end the relationship. Simply, she had to fulfill her own individual prophecy.
Perhaps I am becoming more existential, where I must understand that the only person who gets me, trusts me, and understands my interests and passions is me. As it is for every single other person out there. And in this understanding, I need to take a fresh new look into what a relationship means, and moreso, if I am even ready to take that leap and be ready for that relationship.
It’s the scientist who knows how to play with fire best.
As a scientist, the theory is simple. Once an object initiates motion, intertia dictates that the object remains in motion. In fact, it’s Newton’s famous first law. It’s no surprise that this same concept can be applied to the celebrity social world. No case is more relevant than that of Lindsay Lohan, who has recently embarked on a rather grim downward spiral.
Lindsay Lohan: When she still had Integrity
The stunning Lindsay Lohan was once of my favourite celebrities. I remember Parent Trap fondly, where she played a double role, (the movie was filmed right here at home in Ontario, yeah!). Then of course there was Freaky Friday, where she played the role of an older woman trapped in her teenage body. And then my favourite movie of all-time, (sorry Legally Blonde) is Mean Girls, not only for the gratuitous math content, leading to my favourite line “the limit does not exist,” but for its realistic portrayal of high school life. I went so far as to even read the book it was based on, and the knowledge I gained from both the book and the movie led me to dabble into feminist organizations, where I gained an amazing new perspective in life. It’s crazy how little guys really know about women. In fact, the very same morals that Lindsay Lohan currently portrays serves as a stark contrast to those which Cady Heron actualizes by the end of the film in Mean Girls. Check out an awesome director’s commentary of the life of teenage girls with sick Mean Girls clips to understand what I mean:
Aside from films, I even got into her second album, “A Little More Personal (Raw),” which I enjoy for its unpolished, rock edge. From sweet covers, to intensely emotional songs, it really did seem like Lindsay had a firm grasp on her stance as an artist. Success was her way, she was focussed, popular, one of the hottest girls at the time. So what happened? Check out why I liked her album so much first with this emotionally poignant song:
I think the warning signs arose simply with her excess partying. As news and gossip came out from 2006, she had a hard night suffering from dehydration and likely excess alcohol use, causing her public image to be more Paris Hilton-esque instead of the cute and innocent girl-next-door from family friendly films like Herbie: Fully Loaded. Then the bulemia and drug use came, where she was on the brink of total devastation. And soon after in 2007, came the alcoholism, the DUI, the rehab, it almost sounds like the cycle is expected with any up-and-coming celebrity. This is consequently part of the reason why I respect celebrities like Kaley Cuoco and Reese Witherspoon so much, because they have avoided this entire lifestyle. Still, Lindsay was able to hold it together more-or-less, still being seen with at least some hope. She was still modelling, designing, and the public perception did not turn on her just yet. She at least hasn’t gotten into any crazy marriages like Britney Spears.
Back when she was struggling with eating disorders she was still modelling (as here in Vanity Fair)
Things only got worse once the cocaine rumours began swirling around, and when she finally came out with her lesbian relationship with Samantha Ronson, who later Lindsay claimed was a heavy drug user and had multiple affairs whilst with Lindsay. I had a friend who was obsessed with Ronson, going so far as to meeting her at a club she was DJing at. Through my relationship with the friend, and my constant watching of Chelsea Lately, my interest regarding Lindsay Lohan and her lifestyle blossomed. She entered a very secretive state, which I would assume Ronson pounced on causing a rather abusive relationship between the two. And when she came out from that, her life really took a turn for the worse. No longer was she the G-rated star. Heck, she even paraded her nude body in a New York magazine, a serious taboo for professional stars. She had entered a new state permanently. Even Jamie-Lynn Spears was able to have to some type of normalcy in her life even after having an unexpected child out of wedlock.
I definitely miss the Lohan of old!
This brings to mind an ecological concept I learned in university from an article by Peterson et al. Simply, every ecosystem has a point of stable equilibrium. Imagine a rainforest, where the trees, the snakes, the monkeys, the insects, the tigers, all live in ‘harmony,’ in that their populations remain fairly stable each year, and every organism satisfies a certain function. After a disturbance happens, let’s say a devastating drought takes place for a year, where there is very little rainfall. This will definitely affect the rainforest, but in 2 ways: temporarily or permanently. If it is temporary, perhaps the organisms can resist the lack of rainfall, and can continue with the same functions ordinarily, it is like nothing ever happened, then the ecosystems remains in the same stable state. However, if the ecosystem is not resilient, it is said to have reached a new stable state, whereby the ecosystem reaches a new equilibrium but the diversity and richness of organisms has changed permanently. This system can be modelled physically by a ball rolling on a curved surface:
If the disturbance is great enough, the ball will roll into a new stable state, otherwise it will roll back down into its current state.
So how does this relate back to Lindsay Lohan? I believe her experiences in clubs, with alcoholism, with Samantha Ronson was a disturbance that was too great! Imagine if Lohan is the blue ball, this disturbance pushed her “over the edge” where she now rests at a new stable state, as a completely different person. It’s like the death of a loved one, the trauma may push you “over the edge.” And after grieving one always says, “I’ve become a different person” (aka new stable state), or “I’ve adjusted back to my normal lifestyle” (aka they rolled back down to their current stable state). Perhaps physics does have a role in sociology. Nonetheless, Lindsay has definitely hit a new stable state as the raw, doesn’t care about her self-image persona. It’s the very same image that people are saying Miley Cyrus is approaching. This is evidenced by how Lindsay is even denying — with a completely sober mind — things that have clearly happened in the past, as viewed through this Sun report on an ET interview. It is almost like she completely disregards her journey to this new stable state as herself, and she is simply now reveling in the new character she has developed, skipping alcohol education meetings and starring as a porn star in a new movie. Will Lohan ever get out of the headlines?
Lindsay Lohan today.
Well, to be honest, probably not. As long as Perez Hilton and TMZ are still around, Lindsay Lohan will be a mainstay of our popular interest. And it simply is because she represents that leap to a new steady state that so many of us think about, often try to reach and accomplish, but never actually reach. In a way, the Buddhist philosophy of reaching Nirvana is the same transfer to a new steady state. Essentially the principle dictates that one abstains from all the worldly pleasures to find self-enlightenment. This same structure is reverberated in the oft-quoted Hierarchy of Needs by Maslow. Perhaps Lindsay Lohan has self-actualized, and now she’s living the life she desires, albeit controversial to simpletons like us. And for that, I can’t help but respect her. DUI, drug-use, lack of responsibility and dignity, and potential jail time looming aside, Lindsay Lohan represents that crazy within us that wants to get free, that complete and utter disregard and aversion to social mores of what’s expected, and simply how to live the life that you want to set out to create. And she has the ability to laugh it all off:
So is it a downward spiral? Maybe. But take it for what it is, one individual, choosing to live one life, even though it’s destructive, even though it’s deplorable, she can say her life is decisively Lindsay’s. How many of us can claim complete ownership of our own lives, not affected by a loved one, parent, or child? It’s a rare quality that she possesses. At the bottom of the downward spiral, perhaps she has realized something that all of us reaching the top of the ladder of actualization is trying to realize: listen to your emotions, care about yourself first, and as one of my favourite Lohan songs succinctly states, Live for the Day.
I took my advice in yesterday’s blog post, and decided to only focus on my best friends. Who needs popularity? So, through a long day of studying, I give one of my best friends a text, we then decide to check out a late movie, and when we reach the theatre the one that’s in ‘3D’ catches our intention. And suddenly I am immersed in the life of Perseus, fighting against the omnipotent Gods for mankind.
I came in with no expectations, but Clash of the Titans was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. No, not best as in great screenwriting like the Hurt Locker, touching story like Up, or novel filmmaking like Avatar, but the best in terms of making life feel that much more epic.
I’m a huge fan of these movies where everything is on the line, as you risk your life for ultimate heroics to save the face of humanity. It’s the very reason why I rank the Island, War of the Worlds, Armageddon, I Robot, and all of these pseudo-action-sci-fi-fantasy movies up so high in my all-time favourites. The basic story of the triumphant hero prevailing in the face of adversity is fundamentally the story I yearn to see whenever I watch a movie.
Often with every hero comes an equally formidable heroine, like one of my favourites, Scarlett Johannson
But what makes it so appealing? I am certain it is because there is something within all of us, or at least within myself, that wishes to embark upon the same epic journey. One filled with adventure, one filled with purpose, one filled with success, and maybe even one filled with romantic escapades (such as Perseus and Io, played by the incredibly beautiful Gemma Arteton). Between these four characteristics spells a life desired by all, perhaps an impossible life.
But what does it take to achieve these four? Is it really as simple as establishing high goals, taking risks, trying new things, and working until you achieve them? Perhaps. But even that seems too simple, too attainable, too commonplace. What Perseus realizes in the movie is that he is bestowed the mark of a ‘demi-god,’ as he is half-mortal, and half-divine. He draws upon inspiration from this gift to fight his battles. It seems that part of the “epic” journey requires something special, something innately unique.
“You were put on this planet to save humanity.” A few words, but maybe these are the divine words that cause a journey to be uniquely purposeful, or epic. It was these few words that changed the perception in Perseus’s life. It is the realization that the entire world rests on one’s shoulders that demands one to be their best self. So why is it that we can’t adopt this stance today?
For me, it is likely the fear of delusion. People will think I am insane if I start acting intense, uptight, and like everything was for a purpose. Or perhaps it is because I really, truly, do not believe that one person can make a difference. Sure, I idolize Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, but even they did not change the world themselves, but instead they inspired others to support their unified cause. But are there even any causes worth fighting for? To name a few, there are world hunger, an evolving global energy crisis, and diseases such as AIDS and cancer. Could these be the causes we can fight for?
Why not? And Jane McGonigal, in an extremely inspirational must-watch TED video believes the same, and all of us hardcore gamers can help fight these causes as well:
So, maybe the epic journey does not just come to us like it does with Perseus. But as I watch the movie, with every sword he wields, with every monster he decapitates, with every princess he seduces, I just picture myself doing the same. Perhaps my epic journey will not be so flashy, whereby I battle with a pen, I tackle corrupt governments, and I inspire others that can help me in my cause. But regardless, I know, and I feel, that there is a little bit of Perseus in me. And I will use it for the betterment of this planet.
In life, social trends push us to conform to certain lifestyles, certain behaviours, and certain characteristics. We face a basic dichotomy where we choose A) to conform, or B) to express our individuality. And in life, this fundamental option characterizes every decision we make. Perhaps it may be simplistic to state that every action is based on a binary choice, either A or B, but this is really what it comes down to. One of my favourite psychologists, Maslow, also believed in this decision we always face, although he took a slightly different twist. He stated when we face a crossroads we either choose to pick A) the option that is safe, or B) the option that is the risk.
And really, these two options correspond nicely to conformity vs. individuality. We always choose to conform because it is safe, it is expected, we know a subset of people will accept us once we choose this option. It is the reason why I opt to wear American Eagle or Urban Outfitters clothing instead of cheaper, baggier clothing that I would normally feel more comfortable wearing but would look awkward on my slim physique. It is also the reason why I maintain a shorter hairstyle instead of a longer style representative of the 70s-rocker within me. The reason why I choose these options likely lies in my conflicting sociological beliefs, where I follow the work of Charles Cooley and his looking-glass self, whereby I frame myself upon the predicted judgments of others. Simply put, I want to be accepted, I want people to have a positive first impression of me, and I don’t want to seem aberrant or eccentric. Perhaps the risk of performing an action that is different, even if it is true to who I am, outweighs the benefits of not performing the risk. For instance, I would love to take the risk and have an artistic yet dangerous tattoo on my back like one of my wrestling idols, Randy Orton, but I think about the long-term consequences: Would my wife approve? How will my potential employers react? What would it look like in my old age? Maybe I’m now touching upon a paradigm between living in the present or living in the future, and this conflict is vital to the conformity paradox.
But where does Lady Gaga fit in? She has rocketed to the top of the celebrity world by choosing option B consistently. She takes risks and expresses her individuality. One may initially consider the celebrity world to be leagues apart from our personal worlds, where being individual is a requisite, the only way to have that X-factor to get signed. But Lady Gaga, like all of us, has faced hardships in taking those risks, often originally getting booed in her earlier music acts, and often being teased at school for her different view of life, her sexuality, and her sense of style. And in the end, her individuality has resonated in a world where impressionable teenagers have adapted to the American Eagle clothing, short hair, and clean-cut lifestyle demanded from the norms and mores of society. She has developed a huge fan-base to the point where people want to live a “Gaga” life. Even my dad recently called her amazing and sensational: a huge standard to be given by my father, who possesses a typical aversion to Western Culture. I would solidly place her as one of my inspirations, as she has encouraged all of us to find that “freak” within, as seen in this interview with Ellen. I’d recommend a full watch, but at least watch from the 3:00 point.
Lady Gaga lives in the present. One could argue that most celebrities live in the present, trying to make the most out of their 15 minutes in the spotlight, knowing that they may later transcend back into anonymity. In the real world, there are demands on careful planning, organization, and networking. To achieve success in this world, the paradigm shifts from becoming an actualized individual, to accepting what society demands. Lady Gaga is a misnomer, as she can be the individual and what society demands simultaneously, but there are only so many niches in the world for people like her. Instead of bearing obstacles and hardships in finding that niche in the world, it is often most convenient to choose one or the other.
But how do we know which to choose? Should we consistently choose option A, or consistently option B, or a mixture of the two? The answer is not so simple. Taking a look into animal behaviour, the ultimate reason for all behaviours corresponds to fitness of the individual. For example, a raccoon foraging at night helps it avoid predators, or a bird with a longer and more varied mating song will encourage more potential mates. The animal world is selfish in this regard, as self-sacrificing genes are rare. However, there is a well-documented behaviour known as reciprocal altruism, where an individual animal performs a helpful action upon another individual, where it then expects a similarly beneficial action to be performed later. This is as simple as chimps picking insects from the backs of each other, or as complex as vampire bats regurgitating blood only for those who did the same action beforehand. Although characterized in animals, this action can be seen in humans as a form of friendship.
Even these ugly creatures can develop friendships
In friendships, we often develop a sense of trust, where one performs a favour, and then expects one in return. Friendships form a very basic network in human society, as this reciprocal altruism resonates and is a vital part in the formation of society. The entire economic system and transfer of money relies and enforces this mechanism of altruism, as individuals are rewarded for how much they provide to society. If I work 40 hours, I will earn more than if I work 10 hours. But in every friendship, in every personal connection, we must as suggested in animal behaviour: self-sacrifice. Artists are unique in that people pay and admire their services because of their individuality. For the rest of us, myself included, we must sacrifice ourselves, our passions, and our desires, to be able to acquire money for survival. Even in the smaller-scale with friendships, we must sacrifice part of ourselves to be accepted by the other, it all ties back to the Looking Glass Self.
Just as with chimpanzees or vampire bats, it seemed advantageous to develop altruistic relationships, or friendships. But as time as gone by, I began to realize with every friendship, every relationship, I have had to adapt to the other individual and in turn lose a part of me. Whether it was one-sidedly helping them with their homework, putting up with their offensive remarks, constantly having to listen to their philosophies which often juxtapose mine, or learning to adapt to their markedly different culture, to make these new friendships or relationships work, I needed to sacrifice part of myself. In commonplace, these actions are known as compromise, but really I am compromising my individuality.
Maslow also implored “Be prepared to be unpopular.” Lady Gaga was prepared to be unpopular, and ultimately her hard work paid off. But it’s difficult choosing that option B, when option A is right in front of you. The short-term gains of making that friend, being popular in parties, making those new connections, having a positive image, all seem worth it at the time. But if your passions, your dreams, your beliefs are modified by virtue of picking that option, what is the real gain? Society does necessitate conformity, but as an individual, we must really follow our own heart, or else we will then become a product — not an asset — to society.
Popularity is a goal for all of us. It would be a blatant lie to say otherwise. But perhaps in the long-term the only way to achieve real popularity, popularity for who you are, whether it is the art you produce, the scientific idea you have, the spiritual belief you hold, or the characteristic you hold dear, will only be achieved by staying true to yourself. If you deviate and look at popularity in the short-term, it will be artificial, as you never had time to develop who you are really are.
For me, I have a few best friends, the ones who allow me to be me 100%, and that’s really all I need. I will make sure I am not misled to become a popular conformist… because at the end of the day, I like everyone, wants to be like Lady Gaga, a popular individual. Someone who is respected for who I am, who I was, and who I want to be.
It has been a fun summer of blog posts where I reflect upon life through the scope of popular media and celebrity gossip. However, this past week, my professor Paul Hatala assigned research into decaffeination, and this allowed me to think about how this relates to life as a whole and media at a large.
It’s enlightening how the popularity of these drinks have surged into popularity in recent culture. Decaffeination is the removal of caffeine, the substance responsible for stimulation in the nervous system (Cyldesdale, 1999). In fact, 12% of total coffee consumption is based on decaf coffee (Cyldesdale, 1999), a continuously increasing number, likely linked to celebrity and “healthy living” influences. When paparazzi catch Paris Hilton with that cup of decaf in her hand, and Global News lambasts the effects of caffeine, a paradigm shift emerges as more viewers switch their source of intake. This Dilbert Comic lambasts this emerging paradigm. The underlying motive may be a sense of conformity, a sense of people to follow in the black and white sense, what they see as right instead of what is wrong. This diffusion, separation, and transfer of ideas is also the fabric underlying decaffeination. Before you get into the chemistry, here’s a quick video lambasting the hoopla of decaf coffee.
The principal “European” method is to use a solvent known as methylene chloride, CH2Cl2, which is sometimes criticized for being hazardous in large doses (Petrucci, 2007). Coffee beans are treated with steam first to draw caffeine from the inner bean to the outer surface area, preparing the bean (Sturdivant, 1991). The solvent may then be applied in a direct method, removing solutes from the beans including caffeine, which diffuses into the solute (Webber, 2008). Batch processing can be used, where solvent is evaporated through distillation and re-added to a vessel (Cyldesdale, 1999). This allows more extraction of caffeine until the solvents and beans reach equilibrium as the content of caffeine is so minimal in the beans, it will no longer diffuse out of the shell. In an indirect process, first the water-soluble caffeine is soaked in water, where it is able to diffuse from the bean into this water (Webber, 2008). The water is then treated by the methylene chloride, which then allows the caffeine solutes to be transferred this solvent, and the treated water is then forced back through some tube mechanism to return flavours and oils, and then the process is repeated several times like the previous method until caffeine is minimal (Cyldesdale, 1999). The repetition is required as each stage attains a constant equilibrium, and with La Chatelier’s Principle, by removing the product (removing caffeine through the solvent), the system is shifted to the right (more caffeine is dissolved in water). The methylene chloride acts a selective solvent, only having reactions with the caffeine molecules, not the flavours or oils (Sturdivant, 1991). However, another method does not use this selective solvent.
A simplified model of water-processing for decaffeination. (Norr, 2008).
The second method, touted to be the measure of the future, is the Swiss Water Method. This method uses hot water and steam instead of chemicals (Norr, 2008). The beans absorb water, opens the cellular structures of the beans, and the caffeine and flavour molecules dissolve to the water (Webber, 2008). This water is then filtered through charcoal or carbon filters, where the caffeine molecules are trapped, while the flavour molecules remain with the water (Norr, 2008). The charcoal is pre-treated with sucrose, which helps absorb the caffeine (Cyldesdale, 1999). This ‘flavour-water’ extract is added to new coffee-beans, extracting only caffeine (Norr, 2008). This principle works because the solution is super-satured with flavour, and thus there is equilibrium between the flavour molecules, so solely caffeine will be extracted from the beans. High temperatures (from 70-100°C) are used specifically to supplement this process to increase the kinetic energy of molecules and ability to diffuse.
But what does this all mean? How does diffusion relate back to conformity: This all comes back to the underlying principle of the masses. Think of these caffeine solutes leaving their safe shell to experience new worlds. They are being led into a new system by a strong solvent, beckoning to accept them. As they experience a new world, they are essentially being tainted, leaving their original home permanently, the coffee bean. The solutes WANT to diffuse, reach equilibrium, pass that concentration gradient. People behave in a likewise manner, moving to areas where there is the freedom to explore, with ability to separate themselves from the sheep. By simply obeying the laws of physics and chemistry, they follow the concentration gradient to spread from those similar. But in the end, aren’t these people the sheep controlled by physical forces? Try to imagine a utopian society where everyone shared the same belief, and these beliefs were perfect. This can never happen on the basis of this ‘sociological diffusion.’ People wish to separate and form their unique niche in society. Ideas, opinions, and everything diffuse.
It's easy to understand why people diffuse to popular culture. (Still from Transformers 2)
Yet, a gradient can only go in one direction or the other, a reaction can only go forwards or backwards. Fundamental chemistry relies on dichotomies, and perhaps people are prone to view the world in a similar sense, choosing either decaf or caffeinated coffee. But whereas decaffeination aims for that homogeneity, diffusion in life relies upon heterogeneity. What I mean by this is that decaffeination presents only one path, only giving the option to stay or not to stay, where an equilibrium appears. However in life, we have many solvents, many methods, a variety of journeys to embark upon, each leading us to unique ideas. We should leave that shell to learn and explore, as our original home may restrict how we view the world. But we should not function merely as chemical forces, following the solvent because the Ksp tells us to, or diffusive forces take us out. Morals need to be maintained, judgement needs to be kept, and we must incorporate our biological thought before taking that step to follow. Equilibrium in life must be achieved!
For me, this equilibrium may be to continue this hobby amidst the stresses of university. I think it’s time for me to be that 2-4% of caffeine remaining in the decaf coffee, re-evaluating my shell and re-evaluating me in this Christmas break. And this blog will be the perfect outlet for this introspection.
One of my guiltiest pleasures is the movie Legally Blonde. Sadly, I could probably recite entire scenes just by memory. And I know this is a pretty old movie, but just recently I figured out what made this movie so relatable to me…. It’s the entire theme of positivity!
The basic plotline of the movie is that Elle, the charming character Reese Witherspoon plays, appears to be just as she appears, a dumb blonde, but she ends up actualizing the profession of a lawyer, and winning a high stakes case. To the casual viewer, or even to me at first, the plot seems totally unreasonable, like how can this Paris Hilton-type character become a lawyer? On the other hand, after viewing the movie, it may seem that Elle really was rather intelligent throughout, and her exterior image was just her following the belief ‘be who you want to be,’ as Elle refused to abide to the typical ‘lawyer’ stereotype. However, I believe neither of these was the case.
Look at Elle’s smile in the picture. Look at her posture, her demeanour, and her style. Okay, well you probably just think I’m attracted to this young woman. But yes, that’s exactly it, I am attracted by her, but it’s not because of her appearance, it’s about how she carries her self. She always has that positive spirit! She is therefore to become a lawyer not based on the two theories above, but by constantly having that positive spirit throughout her in the life. And no I don’t mean the ‘positive spirit’ that people like me claim to possess. We always try to appear positive, but would actually consider ourselves more of a ‘realist’ who constantly analyzes every situation. What makes Elle different is that she is just naturally and inherently optimistic and has a real fervour for life. There is not one scene where she stops believing in herself, where she stops believing in the world, or waivers from her fundamental credo that she obviously took a great time to develop.
Okay, but of course, we do need to live our lives with some realism. The movie must have been unrealistic if all it took was a positive attitude to attain success. But that’s a very negative manner in which to look at it. Now just take the positive side of the road. Instead of thinking like a -1 mentality (somewhat negative), think in like a +5 mentality (overwhelmingly positive) where everything always turns out how you want it. “The movie was amazing, it really shows that the way I am thinking is the right way for success, as illustrated by Elle’s success.” Now that makes me much happier.
But what if I now always view the world through these rose-coloured glasses. Sure, I’ll end up taking terrible risks. Perhaps I won’t study for a test as much as I should, perhaps I’ll end up setting myself in a social nightmare, perhaps I’ll jump off of a cliff hoping that I would live unscathed. Obviously, positivity is not a one-track road, and it must come in conjunction with our other ideas and morals. Integrating this step is the challenge in life. There’s no easy route to attain it rather than simply experiencing life.
Now let’s assume Cooley’s socio/psychological ‘looking glass’ model. Basically, this model suggests that our ego, (the perception of oneself) is based on how we believe others view us. In general, if someone says I’m a loser, ignores me, or doesn’t include me, I’ll feel bad, and thus have a negative ego, whereas if people smile at me, invite me to functions, and engage in natural physical contact with me, I’ll feel good, and thus have a positive ego. We consequently develop our self through the judgment of others. I’m a strong advocate for this theory because it just makes logical sense.
But how does this fit in with positivity? Think about it personally, who would you rather associate with? Who would you rather have stuck in an elevator with you? Who would you rather have at a party? Is it the Negative Nancy or the Positive Pete? I’ll guarantee you that you would like to surround yourselves with positive people in your life. It seems flat-out obvious that when you’re down and depressed, you want to have that person who says ‘everything will be alright!’ And the reason why we like this, is because when we’re around people who are just naturally smiling, exuberant, confident, and have that positive self-esteem, we as humans will receive these positive sociological cues from them, and therefore will be happier as well!
Not only does having a positive view on life help ourselves, but it helps those around us as well. People will be drawn to the positive person because the positive person will help improve their self-esteem. In turn, the positive person will have more contacts, more friends, more social activity, and more of a reason to be genuinely happy. In short, positivity breeds positivity. It’s like a snowball effect, if you keep on adding positive integers, you’ll get a larger positive number. Whereas, if you keep on adding negative numbers, the sum will just become more despondent.
So when people ask me who my greatest fictional influence is, of course I would never say Elle Woods because that just seems stupid and ignorant on the basis. I would probably say someone like Siddhartha from Hesse’s novel, or Dev Patel from Slumdog Millionaire because of their perseverance or journey of introspection. However, secretly, I know I would want to say Elle, because I feel the most important value in life to have is positivity. That’s the bottom top line!
I took my advice in yesterday’s blog post, and decided to only focus on my best friends. Who needs popularity? So, through a long day of studying, I give one of my best friends a text, we then decide to check out a late movie, and when we reach the theatre the one that’s in ‘3D’ catches […]
On the topic of beauty, Olivia Wilde, who according to Maxim magazine (a great source for the objective definition of beauty :P), is the number 1 hottest girl alive! When Megan Fox has a crush on a girl, according to this article, you know you’ve got a hot one. She’s also the sultry Dr. ‘13‘ […]
My favourite music consists of Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Rush, The Doors, Led Zeppelin, and all those famous 70s ‘classic rock’ bands, but search a little more in my ipod, and you’ll find the full discography for my girl, Kelly Clarkson. And okay, whenever I tell people this, they think it’s some weird crush or […]
Prateek
Infinite Vector 
