The Popular Individual

Lady Gaga lives life to the beat of her own drum

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.

Peace and love!!

Reaching that Equilbrium in Coffee… and in Life

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.

Decaf is trendy, it's in. http://www.fitsugar.com/1131487

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 K_sp 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.

Peace and Love!!

Works Cited

Cyldesdale, F. (1999, October 21). How is caffeine removed to produce decaffeinated coffee? Scientific American . Retrieved from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-is-caffeine-removed-t

Norr, S. (2008, July). Where does the Caffeine Go? Tea and Coffee.  Retrieved from: http://www.teaandcoffee.net/0708/feature.htm.

Petrucci, R. (2007). General Chemistry Principles & Modern Applications 9th Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Sturdivant, S. (1991, February 1). Methylene chloride decaffeination: bad process or bad press. Tea & coffee Trade Journal . Retrieved from http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/food-manufacturing-food-coffee-tea/154175-1.html

Webber, R. (2008, September 25). How Do They Remove the Caffeine from Coffee. CHOW Food Media, CBS.  Retrieved from http://www.chow.com/stories/11330

The Physics of Love?

A brilliantly hilarious sitcom

It makes logical sense that my favourite TV show is devoted to the lives of two theoretical physicists.  And after two great seasons, I still think back to the several science jokes, mythological references, philosophical debates, and social mishaps that provide the show with its unique charm.  I find it amazing and really rewarding to find a problem able to project its humour out to the so-called ‘nerds‘ and ‘geeks‘ of our world while still maintaining a pop culture appeal.  But perhaps the underlying factor that really keeps me posted to the show is the potentially grim realization that this may be exactly how my own future pans out.

Now, with the current path I’m taking in life, it is highly probable that I will become a crazy physics researcher like the two main characters of the show, Sheldon and Leonard.  For those who have seen the show, it is the arrogant, controlling, and oddly oblivious Sheldon who often steals many of the show’s scenes.  However, it is Leonard who I can really relate to, likely because he aims to develop a more balanced lifestyle.  And when it comes down to it, the premise that I can really relate to is his quest to develop a relationship with Penny (the sexy Kaley Cuoco, formerly of “8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter“).  Like Leonard, I forsee identical obstacles in trying to form a closer relationship with someone for whom I feel deep affection.  And it’s interesting that despite making great scientific achievements, having a fun core group of friends, and partaking in so many hobbies from video games to paintball to comic books, Leonard still has this void in his life.

But obviously, I’m sure 95% of you believe that you eventually need a romantic companion, and thus you should always devote some time for this goal.  And I do agree, but the search for this ‘love‘ or ‘soulmate‘ often becomes a primary motivation in our lives.  However, I feel that embarking upon this conquest at this time is not the best idea.  And I think the high school relationship serves as a prime example.  During this time people ‘hook up‘ for the sake of, well, hooking up.  Oftentimes it is not based on compatibility, but rather a raw physical attraction, or the fact that one party has a vulnerable neediness.  This is evident in the overdramatic nature of several break-ups.  I know many girls who must always have a guy by their side to feel comfortable and accepted, and likewise I know many guys who feel inferior unless they have that girlfriend like everyone else.  Herein lies the classic example of peer pressure tied in with adolescent confusion.

Okay, but of course it is fine to experiment! We’re teens, we should have that liberty to learn about others and learn about ourselves through the context of dating, and even more.  Nevertheless, at this point of time, a divergence suddenly emerges in the style of sociological relations of men.  I cannot speak for girls, heck I can seldom understand girls.  So for guys, it’s the clear distinction of ‘jerks‘ and ‘nice guys.’  Don’t get me wrong, I know some really amazing and inspiring guys, who in a social context with girls will act like ‘jerks.’  They will do this because in high school, the ‘jerk‘ mentality is the superior method in achieving the goal that every guy desires, which is the girl.  The problem is because this methodology works, they are enabled to continue this type of lifestyle in the future.  Whereas, the ‘nice guy‘ bringing in all their morals and integrity into their social game are then shunned by the girl because they simply don’t have that appeal.

I know what you’re thinking though.  If you’re a nice guy, “well I’m a nice guy, and I do perfectly well” or if you’re a girl, “I never fall for jerks!”  But here, we really have to think about the premise of attraction.  Whereas we all claim to act or behave in a specific manner, our mind will work differently.  I feel it always comes down, “we want what we can’t have,” which is the basis of why so many of us have crushes on celebrities.  People are appealed to what is different, what is mysterious, what is exciting.  Nobody likes boredom, especially not teenagers who would rather be excited than comfortable.  It is for this reason, that people have to project exuberant social images to gain that attraction.  For example a guy will work out excessively, wear designer clothing, or act especially aloof, and a girl will lather on excessive make-up, become especially flirty, or wear revealing clothing.  These are all mechanisms to appear more appealing.  But we ALL do it, because this is how we will survive socially, Social Darwinism again.  And because the initial attraction has this fake pretense, this is the sole reason why ‘high school’ relationships flounder so quickly.  But maybe all of this is wrong, perhaps I’m just creating all these theories to cover up my own short-comings.  Heck, I’ll never be as suave as UFC fighter Rampage Jackson, like in this hilarious video.

But this is exactly where it comes back to me and Leonard.  He is one of the most intelligent people in the world, capable of creating even greater theories than I am, yet he falls under the same category as me.  But like I stated, perhaps instead of existing within several relationships, our personalities are suited such that we can discover ourselves much better through our introspection and immersing ourselves within our work. All you really need is one, that one love, that one person that you can really live with and be happy with.  When I’m 50 years old, it won’t matter if I’ve had intimate relationships with 100 women or 1 women, as long as I am entirely in love with the woman I am sitting next to until my own age.

Thus as young adults, we should start adopting a new mentality.  We shouldn’t let the effort to find that significant other cloud our own visions and jugments.  Instead, we should focus upon our individual, independent aspirations.  We’re all reaching for that happy and successful life, so we should owe that ‘experimentation’ phase to what we are truly about.  If this does mean meeting lots of random men or women, then that’s your lifestyle, and I respect that.  However, if that isn’t who you are, don’t make yourself into that other person.  I believe these people are called ‘tools‘ or ‘posers‘ or another negative connotation for good reason.  Just be yourself, whoever that may be, and revel in your self-created world!  If the world around you is your own world, then nothing but good can come from it.

Peace and love!!

PS. In the meanwhile, have a taste in my world, and see if you really do enjoy The Big Bang Theory:

The microcosm of life.

Big Brother's back baby!!

Another season of my favourite summer show, and I can’t help but wonder what the appeal of this reality program is?

Okay, the first thing I think of, is perhaps it has to do with the sexy girls.  It’s tough for any heterosexual guy to resist those temptations, such as Laura‘s enormous fake breasts (see girl on the far right), or Jordan‘s downright Southern charm (the blond girl in the brown bikini).  What’s more interesting, however, is for some reason the one houseguest which I am seemingly inexplicably drawn to is Michele, (brunette sitting in the purple), a full-fledged neuroscientist.  Maybe intelligence is becoming more alluring to me, it’s about time!

But let’s step away from the girls for a second, come on, really, I’m watching a show based on attractive females? What I’ve loved about Big Brother is its sense of strategy, the constant power shifts, the fighting for dominance amidst wild competitions and romantic tension.  Then I take a step back, and I ponder… even though these unfortunate houseguests are competing for a prize, isn’t life the same type of competition?

Okay, now stay with me, sure the word “microcosm” is thrown around way too often these days.  We can remark back to reading Lord of the Flies in grade 9, where the island the boys set up is merely a microcosm of a real life government.  Even thinking in a global scale, people often remark to the demographics of the hypothetical ‘global village‘ as an indication of what direction to take in the real world.

This year’s theme in the Big Brother house is all about high school cliques.  Just coming out of high school, I would not want to go back into a house where people are segregated based on preconceived notions, but sadly that’s how the world is.  I know I’d be placed in the ‘brains‘ clique knowing me.  Heck, reading Ronnie‘s bio, (the awkward pale guy in the red shirt), I can relate to a guy like him so well.  A video game geek, finding success in speech and debating competitions, and somehow has a wife for 5 and a half years, who he loves dearly because she can put up with him!  Any woman who could put up with me would be a hero in my heart too.  Anyways, in this house, Ronnie represents the people like me, and I can see a little of all the friends I’ve made and acquaintances I know in each member of the house.  And this is what Ronnie must deal with, trying to gain power and trying to stay afloat in a house full of ‘popular kids,’ ‘athletes,’ and the ‘offbeat.’

In my own view, life is definitely not very different.  Sometimes I view being smart or having brains, or whatever I have, as a curse, not a blessing.  Suddenly I have to make goals, I have to foster this ‘gift,’ I have to continue progressing to find some sort of scientific achievement, and I need to keep my passion in knowledge alive.  While progressing down this path, I lose the chance to just take it easy, lose all care of life, and just have a carefree life like Braden (cool surfer guy).  I also am unable to just live life in a tangent I love, instead of striving to be well-rounded like Lydia (tattoo girl).  And lastly, and possibly most regrettably I haven’t able to put forth the time to really work on my body and excel in sports.  Perhaps this is part of the reason why I have such a deep rooted animosity against Jesse (body builder on the bottom right) in particular. Now I’ve been working out, and if any of you have seen me, I’m not muscular, I’m pretty skinny, I know. And like anything in life, if I see a weakness in the world, or within myself, I attempt to work at it.  And it pains me to feel tired so fast in the gym, and being unable to lift a certain weight or do enough reps, because I feel disadvantaged.

Now let’s go back to the microcosm, everyone has their advantages, others have their drawbacks, and yet we all try to get on top. Heck, it’s the story of our lives trying to hook up with that hot girl, getting into that university we want, getting the amazing job, having a great family.  Power in our lives is the actualization of our goals.  And more often that not, there are obstacles to these goals. All these obstacles are within ourselves, it may be how we wish to perceive our goal.  On the other hand, it may be a basic deep-rooted deficiency within ourselves coded within our genetics.  Whatever it may be, we still wish to reach our goals.  And every goal comes with social implications, a sense of competition, a sense of wanting to be the best.  Even if you are Mother Teresa or Gandhi, you have to work against your naysayers and bring others to believe in your cause.

This all comes back to Big Brother, where everyone has there same goal: winning the game, people may take different paths such as sheer survival, reaching for the power directly, hooking up with every guy in the house to gain their trust, etc.  But in the end they are hindered by their own deficiencies, whether it’s their label, their personality, their athleticism, or their vision, and at the same time they must gain the trust and manipulate those around them.  This is life, as simple as it is.

So in the end I watch Big Brother because I want to see how life really plays out, so I can take a piece of it back to me, so I can learn how to make my life that much better.

Peace and love!!