Humanities

Well, to start off, going into this DB I had no real idea of what animal humanities, let alone regular humanities were. However, thanks to a few quick key strokes and click of the mouse, I now know that the humanities are concerned with an education in the human condition, via subjects like language, literature, history, philosophy, and religion.

A HELPFUL CHART FOR UNDERSTANDING WHAT "HUMANITIES" ENCOMPASSES. AS A SIDE NOTE, IT RESEMBLES THE PLAN 2 CURRICULUM. 

So, by way of a simple word switch-a-roo, animal humanities must relate to the animal condition, and, to be honest, the present animal condition is not doing so hot.

            As we all have learned this school year, many animals (and nearly all that humans interact with) are locked up, domesticated, seen as entertainment, or slaughtered.

EVEN MANS BEST FRIENDS SUFFER.

Yet, people continue to consume meat at a very fast pace. Even in the far East, whose religions are much more environmentally conscience, there is meat consumption. This apparent disregard for other forms of life stems from various causes.

            One of these causes is religion and spirituality. “The emphasis in Judaism and Christianity on the transcendence of god above nature and the dominion of humans over nature has led to a devaluing of the natural world and a subsequent destruction of its resources for utilitarian ends."[1] Those influenced by the western religions aren’t really taught that animals should always be treated humanely. There are numerous occasions in the Bible where an animal is slaughtered or sacrificed.

THIS PICTURE DEPICTS THE BIBLICAL TALE OF THE JEWS APPLYING SHEEPS BLOOD ON THEIR DOOR DURING PASSOVER SO THAT THE ANGEL OF DEATH DID NOT MAKE A VISIT.

I guess the thought is that we were created in God’s image, so we must be the superior species, we must be the powerful ones, and thus these animals must be here for our own benefit. However, what gets lost in today’s society is that, while something may not be in God’s image, it is still a fruit of his labor, and consequently deserves to be treated respectfully. This leads to a loss of “responsibility of the higher for the lower.”[2] Janists have not forgotten this idea though. In fact, they are the exact opposite of the meat consuming world. They “[abstain] from causing suffering to any living thing, on the one hand, and…[render] service to others for eradicating their suffering, on the other hand.”[3] Another reason that humans claim to be the dominant species is our higher intelligence. Yet, interestingly enough, “a full grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversational animal than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old.”[4] In fact, a new scientific study (which I found out from yahoo.com) has discovered that a humanly nursed chimp is actually more mentally developed than a human infant of the same age. And, of course, our superior intellect is no reason to eat a baby, so it can’t really be used to defend meat consumption.

            Another reason for the overwhelming obsession with meat is the fact that the majority of people don’t see how it is created. While our affinity for meat started thousands of years ago—“to the ancients it was very obviously something that contains blood, and blood very early on had a powerful mystical significance”[5]—it is currently a liking that has turned into twisted obsession. The truth of the matter is that if everyone had to kill their own animals that they raised and fed and bonded with, or simply witnessed someone else doing it, even if they “would kill [them] in a way that won’t hurt…do it carefully”[6], they would most likely happen upon the same revelation as Rick in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Rick realizes that he can’t kill the android Rachael, especially since they have gotten close.

WHILE ANIMALS WILL PROBABLY NEVER BE TREATED AS EQUALS, THEY SHOULD WITHOUT A DOUBT BE GIVEN BETTER TREATMENT.

Now that he views a single android as an equal, “[he] won’t be able to retire any more androids,”[7] for, in his mind, that would be the same as killing a human being.

---

[1] Lawrence Sullivan, “Janism and Ecology,” X94

[2] Lawrence Sullivan, “Janism and Ecology,” X96

[3] Lawrence Sullivan, “Janism and Ecology,” X97

[4] Greg Garrard, “Ecocriticism” X98

[5] “Heretic’s Feast,” X110

[6] Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, 200

[7] Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, 201

PHOTOS:

1. HUMANITIES GRAPH

http://www.lib.purdue.edu/hsse/facultyandstaff/bibliographers/tutorials/philosophy/philosophy_humanities.jpg

2. DOG IN CAGE http://www.lakotasong.com/peppy/peppytitle.jpg

3. BLOOD ON DOOR http://www.ordination.org/MCAC%20Backup/passover9.jpg

4. PROTESTER http://media.canada.com/idl/cahr/20060717/168663-64491.jpg

Comfortably Numb

This past winter break was pretty uneventful for me. For the majority of the time I was home, my old friends were usually away somewhere with their families and my parents were at work. So, needless to say, I was pretty bored. I ended spending quite a bit of time in front of a screen while sitting on some form of comfortable furniture (pathetic, I know). Doing nothing else but watching TV and playing video games was great for a few days; however, my mood soon went from relaxed to borderline depressed. My life, in those few weeks, had no purpose. Could those days I spent on the couch even be considered living, or was I merely “something that only pretends to be alive”[1]? 

 DURING MY TIME ON THE COUCH, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD EVEN CONSIDER MYSELF MORE THAN A PRIMITIVE HUMAN. I WAS ESSENTIALLY A VEGETABLE. A BORED, LAZY VEGETABLE. 

That time has led me to wonder whether or not we, as a civilized species, are more evolved than our predecessors—and I believe the answer, at least in an emotional sense, is no.

            The world as we know it in 2009 is very technologically advanced. Information on anything known to man is only a click away, entertainment can be found anywhere there are pixels, communication knows no boundaries, food is prepared for us, and air-conditioned shelter is hardly ever more than a few feet away. These advances have made human life easier, but not necessarily better. As our struggle for life’s necessities becomes more and more nonexistent, so goes our emotional interaction with the world. It is causing us “to be less than a full man”[2]—androids, perhaps. 

 WHILE WE HAVE EVOLVED IN THE SENSE OF INTELLIGENCE, WE HAVE DE-EVOLVED IN THE SENSE OF PURPOSE.

With these guarantees of human requirements and an increasing number of comforts, civilization is causing “a human laziness.”[3] We no longer “use [our] body and senses to the fullest”[4] because we no longer have to. Finding food, water, shelter, and companionship is no longer an issue, so our senses—our feelings and interactions with the world around us—have been dulled.

            Along with the deterioration of our feelings, our evolved way of life has de-evolved our sense of meaning. People now have to search for purpose, for a reason to wake up in the morning. There are days when you can wake up, do nothing, and there are no consequences. No one suffers, no one benefits, no one is impacted, no one cares. So, instead, we have created this framework of going to school and getting jobs, not completely to make money or help others, but to fill the void left by the fight for survival. Yet, these creations of ours seem to only complicate life and distract us from “birth, love, death; the sheer fact of being alive.”[5] 

OUR THIRST FOR PURPOSE CAN CONSUME US, THUS TAKING THE FOCUS OFF OF LIFE'S TRUE STORYLINE.

Rather than “[living] vastly in the present”[6], we often concern ourselves with the anticipation of the future or reminesce about the past because of the strength of these feelings.

            We may have developed physically and mentally, but there is not doubt that our lives are becoming comfortably numb.

           http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkJNyQfAprY 

PINK FLOYD'S "COMFORTABLY NUMB": A SONG THAT DESCRIBES WHAT IT IS LIKE TO LIVE IN TODAY'S SOCIETY.

            Also, FYI, “Snakes move without limbs, and are like free penises.”[7]

 I’m sorry. I couldn’t help myself.

 

---

[1] Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, 141

[2] Gary Snyder, “Poetry and the Primitive: Notes on Poetry as an Ecological Survival Technique,” X52

[3] Gary Snyder, “Poetry and the Primitive: Notes on Poetry as an Ecological Survival Technique,” X52

[4] Gary Snyder, “Poetry and the Primitive: Notes on Poetry as an Ecological Survival Technique,” X51

[5] Gary Snyder, “Poetry and the Primitive: Notes on Poetry as an Ecological Survival Technique,” X49

[6] Gary Snyder, “Poetry and the Primitive: Notes on Poetry as an Ecological Survival Technique,” X49

[7] Gary Snyder, “Poetry and the Primitive: Notes on Poetry as an Ecological Survival Technique,” X50

PHOTOS:

[1] fatty watching tv, http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_02/fattv2404_468x312.jpg

[2] evolution?, http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/insert_coin_evolution.jpg

[3] busy person, http://www.eduverse.org/images/busy_person.jpg

Boys Don't Cry

I am pretty positive about that I am an emotionally intelligent person. I cried the first time I saw The Notebook and I thought Legally Blonde was pretty entertaining. Yeah. There. I said it. What’re you going to do about it?

           I'VE GOT TO ADMIT, THIS MOVIE TUGGED SOME STRINGS.

So, I don’t think that I necessarily have a problem with being stoic or insensitive to the world around me. However, I believe our society actually encourages and puts pressure on its males to be emotionally retarded, if you will. It’s pretty simple: if you have something between your legs, you aren’t supposed to cry, you aren’t supposed to want to talk, you aren’t supposed to be concerned with too much outside of fixing things, mowing the lawn, drinking beer, having sex, and frantically yelling at the game on TV as if you were the head coach. If you don’t feel this way, then you get called the equivalent of not having something between your legs. As males, we are not meant to “harmonize head and heart,”[1], but rather heart and reproductive organ.

FROM A YOUNG AGE, THE IDEA OF NOT SHOWING EMOTION IS BRANDED ONTO MALES.

 A great example of a stereotypical male and his expected absence of compassion, that is “the feeling or emotion, when a person is moved by the suffering or distress of another, and by the desire to relieve it,”[2] is given in Philip Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. In the novel, the chickenhead Isidore must tell Mrs. Pilsen that her cat has died. Yet, Isidore tries to console the grieving Mrs. Pilsen by informing her that she can get an “exact electric duplicate of [her] cat…in which every detail of the old animal is faithfully repeated,”[3] and that such an opportunity exists is “fortunate.”[4] While she eventually takes Isidore’s offer, the Mrs. Pilsen was not consoled by Isidore’s way of communication. 

 MEN HAVE A REPUTATION FOR BEING INSENSITIVE AND NOT UNDERSTANDING.

That moment, in her time of grief, the last thing this woman probably wanted to talk about was getting a new robotic cat for her husband. Isidore’s misplaced words is just another example of men are generalized as being insensitive to women who “in general, feel both positive and negative emotions more strongly than do men.”[5] I think that because of our culture’s expectations of men to have such a limited emotional range, the story of Gary, the “intelligent, thoughtful, and a successful surgeon”[6] who was “emotionally flat, completely unresponsive to any and all shows of feeling.”[7] In his situation, I don’t think his enormous intelligence has somehow suppressed his emotional side (I don’t think any side of the brain is dominating the other), but he is emotionally limited by the standards of his sex.

            I believe this emphasis on being an uncompassionate male can contribute to the deterioration of one’s ethics. For any one male, what starts off as “boys don’t cry” can, with a few wrong turns, become “boys don’t feel”, which can, under the worst circumstances, morph into “boys don’t have compassion, empathy, or sympathy.” When one is told this from a very young age, the belief is like a disease that can’t be cured. Perhaps this is why there are ten times as many male murderers—people like David Lee Powell—as female.

PERHAPS POWELL WAS AFFECTED BY OUR SOCIETIES MALE STIGMA.

[1] Daniel Goleman, “Emotional Intelligence,” X61

[2] definition of compassion,X41

[3] Philip Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, 80

[4] Philip Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, 80

[5] Daniel Goleman, “Emotional Intelligence,” X62

[6] Daniel Goleman, “Emotional Intelligence,” X64

[7] Daniel Goleman, “Emotional Intelligence,” X64

PHOTOS:

1. The Notebook, http://www.reellifewisdom.com/files/images/notebook%203.jpg

2. Don't Cry, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blast/showcase/submitted/images/gallery/118496133228393352770_1.jpg

3. Cartoon, http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/amc0711l.jpg

4. Powell, http://z.about.com/d/crime/1/0/r/k/powelld.jpg

Manimals

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTbJf8RDPgs  

I THOUGHT THIS VIDEO WOULD ADD A LITTLE HUMOR AND LIGHT-HEARTEDNESS TO THE CONVERSATION.

I think I may have finally come to a conclusion about my feelings toward animals, specifically animals that we breed for our own uses, and whether or not our actions are a representation of survival of the fittest.

            First off, in order to come to such realizations, I had to remind myself that humans are “living creatures”[1], and thus animals. We are in the same category as the cows, pigs, and sheep that we slaughter. We “animals” all have the desire to reproduce, to find food and drink, to have shelter, and to sleep. However, despite our similarities to the brethren of our kingdom, there are quite a few drastic differences that set us apart.

            WE MUST REMEMBER THAT AT ONE OF OUR MOST BASIC DEFINITIONS, WE ARE STILL JUST ANIMALS. 

One main distinction between humans and non-human animals is that humans were given the talent of ingenuity and creative thinking ability. In fact, a human is defined as being “distinguished from animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright posture.”[2] Even our posture symbolizes our higher level of sophistication. However, I feel that our greater thinking capacity is both a gift and a curse. While it, along with our opposable thumbs, has allowed us as a species to create great paintings, beautiful symphonies, a weeks worth of weather predictions, durable shelter, and endless means of entertainment, it has also brought about the creation of money, pollution, jobs, “being naked [and] knowing it”[3], ethics, and everything that complicates the necessities of life.

           A DOG DOES NOT KNOW, NOR CARE, THAT IT IS "NAKED"...YET WE CLOTHE THEM ANYWAY.

Another byproduct of our higher intellect is how we have gone about the idea of survival of the fittest between species, namely our way of accumulating food. As humans, we weren’t blessed with the speed of a cheetah, the strong jaw of a lion, or the strength of a bear. These are all outstanding characteristics that enable these species to have a good chance at surviving. However, humans weren’t given any such remarkable physical trait. No—instead we were given the ability to outsmart animals, to create contraptions that would render their superior physical capabilities obsolete. Now, does this give our captured animals a fair chance? Of course not, but (as horrible as it sounds) nowhere in the description of survival of the fittest is the term “fair” mentioned. There also aren’t six billion cows in the world that need to be fed.

          PHYSICALLY, WE DON'T STAND A CHANCE AGAINST LARGER ANIMALS. ONLY BY THE POWER OF OUR MIND ARE WE ABLE TO HOLD OUR OWN.

  Despite our greater minds, I feel that most people do not possess “the power of projecting one’s personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation.”[4] I have never been locked in a cage, seen a friend be killed, or experienced torture. I can only imagine that just the victims of genocide may ever know what these animals go through. 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO HAVE EMPATHY FOR A CREATURE WITH WHICH ONE CANNOT COMMUNICATE OR RELATE TO.

Yet, because of this inability of ours, we tend to view other species as “vastly inferior”[5] and ourselves as “highly developed.”[6] Thankfully though, “no one can deny the suffering, fear or panic, the terror or fright that humans witness in certain animals.”[7] As a result of this fact, I would like to believe that those responsible for the death of animals make the process a “speedier, and by that means a less painful one than that which would await them in the inevitable course of nature.”[8] A certain movie, though, has shown me that such is not the case.

            So, when it comes down to it, I definitely feel that there should be some serious reform in the treatment of animals, for we must remember that they aren’t that much different from us, though I don’t ever see myself giving up meat.

---

[1] Jacques Derrida, “The Animal That Therefore I Am (Following),” X34

[2] definition of “human”, Oxford English Dictionary, X36

[3] Jacques Derrida, “The Animal That Therefore I Am (Following),” X22

[4] definition of “empathy”, X45

[5] Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, 42

[6] Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, 42

[7] Jacques Derrida, “The Animal That Therefore I Am (Following),” X32

[8] Jeremy Bentham, “the Principles of Morals and Legislation”, X47

PHOTOS:

[1] goat/man, http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/09/24/narnia-goat-man.jpg

[2] dog with sweater, http://www.drsfostersmith.com/images/Categoryimages/normal/p-32521-41071P_013-dog.jpg

[3] bear, http://www.eteamz.com/MontgomeryLittleLeague/images/GrizzlyBear-scary.jpg

[4] empathy, http://www.catherinelazure.com/ImagesforWeb/Empathy3_99Lg.jpg

Why isn't the T-Rex mentioned in the Bible?

 When it comes down to it, especially in the absence of religion, we truly are all pretty insignificant. “Under [us], beneath the long grass, [are] millions of bones,”[1] and above us are “infinities surpassing the powers of imaginations.”[2]

THERE IS AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF SPACE ABOVE US...

...AND AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF DEAD ANCESTORS BENEATH OUR FEET. WHAT, THEN, IS OUR SIGNIFICANCE?

150 (perhaps a little bit longer due to technology) years from now the life that I lead—where I go to school, what I enjoy doing, who I befriend, who I help, what I look like—will be completely irrelevant, if not entirely forgotten, even by members of my own family. I know this is going to happen because none of my relatives of this generation or I can  name our great-grandparents. That is just how things are: after more than three generations, it’s so long and thanks for all the genes gramps. Sometimes I think about this and wonder why I get so worked up about things like school-work or financial problems. The accolades and salaries that we accumulate in this lifetime are so small in the grand scheme of this planet that they aren’t even worthy of a shout-out on it’s timeline. For no matter what we accomplished, we all will someday end up in the same dirt. Hell, even the planet whose dirt we will rot in is fairly insignificant in terms of the universe. 

   THE DETAILS OF MY EXISTENCE WILL NEVER APPEAR ON ANY TYPE OF TIMELINE. I AM OF TOO SMALL IMPORTANCE.         

Okay, so since that is over with, is anyone else as bummed out as I am? I don’t particularly enjoy that fact that “mankind [appears] as an incidental and fortuitous episode in the age-long history of the stars.”[3] In fact, it is something that I find very hard to accept. I’m supposed to do all this hard work creating a life for myself while being a good person and then when it’s over I just get decomposed by maggots in the ground? It just ends? Huh? No, no, no. There must be some other reason I am here, a reason that is much more fulfilling. This is where religion comes in. My religion fills me with a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging, and, to be honest, a sense of sanity. I have to believe that we were put on this earth, that our bodies are constructed so efficiently, that we are able to create and contemplate so much, for some reason other than pure coincidence. I have to believe that “Nothing walks with aimless feet; that not one life shall be destroyed, or cast as rubbish to the void, when God hath made the pile complete.”[4] Our lives have purpose and meaning, and as a result our lives are valued by God, no matter how insignificant we may feel while here on Earth.

RELIGION OF ALL KINDS CAN GIVE PEOPLE A SENSE OF PURPOSE, BELONGING, AND MEANING.

However, I would be lying if I said that I have never questioned my faith or wondered why horrible things like natural disasters happen or why people suffer. It leads me to ponder if “God and Nature [are] then at strife”[5], why “Time [can be] a maniac scattering dust, and life [can be] a fury resembling flame.”[6] The truth is I don’t know why these things happen, but can only believe that they are all part of some heavenly plan and hope that I am right. I feel this way because doesn’t everybody want to die for something, to be a part of something bigger than themselves?

Science, with its facts, proof, tangible and visible results, is a hard argument to ignore. Yet, I have always felt like science and religion can coexist—that science can be used to prove religion as much as it can be used to refute it. Perhaps I am just naïve and childish on this subject, but I still steadfastly believe what my Sunday school teachers always told me: that yes, God created the world in six days and then took the seventh day off, and that no, we cannot define how long a day is in God’s mind. A day could by 30 seconds, five years, or even millions of years. Why then can’t evolution and the big bang theory coexist with creationism? 

 I DON'T PRETEND TO BE AN EXPERT ON SUCH SUBJECTS, BUT I DON'T VIEW THE COEXISTENCE OF CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION AS BEING ENTIRELY FAR-FETCHED. 

As crazy as it may sound, I have always felt that God is still continuing his work, still perfecting us in his image through evolution. I view “God as a loving being who directs evolution toward beneficent ends.”[7] One day we may finally get there, but not yet. Maybe this sounds silly, but I don’t know how else to explain the existence of dinosaurs and their obvious omission from the Bible.

            I admit that it can be difficult to believe in something that is cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, tasted. However, I find it even more difficult to believe that our planet and its inhabitants (including us), with all of our intricacies, came to be in our present situation by pure, random occurrence. In the end, “[I] know not anything, I can but trust that good shall fall.”[8] That is what faith is all about.

---

[1] Larry McMurtry, “Living Among Skeletons and Ghosts,”, X603A

[2] Lionel Stevenson, “Darwin among the Poets,” Darwin 653

[3] Lionel Stevenson, “Darwin among the Poets,” Darwin 653

[4] Alfred Tennyson, “In Memoriam,” lyric LIV

[5] Alfred Tennyson, “In Memoriam,” lyric LV

[6] Alfred Tennyson, “In Memoriam,” lyric L

[7] Lionel Stevenson, “Darwin among the Poets,” Darwin 654

[8] Alfred Tennyson, “In Memoriam,” lyric LIV

PHOTOS:

[1] Starry sky, http://www.galaxypix.com/stars/4086.jpg

[2] bones in the ground, 

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1914143/2/istockphoto_1914143_bones_in_the_ground.jpg

[3] timeline, http://www.dinosaurisle.com/images/Timeline%203.gif

[4] women praying,http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/2849950885_a84a968628.jpg?v=0

[5] Jesus with Darwin, http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/16/darwin_phototennis.jpg

Dog eats dogs, then cares for other dogs

 Growing up, my dad, being the cheesball that he is, would always try to incorporate life lessons into our mundane daily activities. If my entire family managed to make it to the dinner table, he would always say “Now this is what it’s all about.” When I would sweep the floors, he made sure that I got the corners too, because “the little things are just as important as the big picture.” And whenever I was struggling with something, whether it be in the field of academics or athletics, he always made sure I understood that “there will always be someone better than [me], so [I] should just concentrate on doing [my] best.”

LANCE ALWORTH'S FATHER TOLD HIS SON THAT HE WOULD NEVER BE THE BEST AT HIS SPORT. LANCE WENT ON TO BE A PRO FOOTBALL HALL OF FAME RECEIVER.

While this may be true, it didn’t stop me from trying like hell to be the best—the fittest—at whatever I did. Often times, if I realize I can’t be at least one of the best at something—perhaps activities that require traits that “are [not] in [my] genes and cannot be changed”[1]—I will give up completely. 

BASEBALL WAS SOMETHING I WAS TERRIBLE AT. AFTER ONE RUN IN AN ENTIRE SEASON, I DECIDED THIS WOULD BE THE LAST BASEBALL PICTURE I EVER TOOK. 

 On the opposite end of the spectrum, if I find something I am good at, I tend to be rather ruthless in my execution, basically throwing ethics out the window.

            However, this leads me to a very interesting crossroad concerning my leadership vision. My situation is very much like Dana’s. The career path of a doctor is (ironically) one that is permeated with a dog-eat-dog mentality, for being a good surgeon requires a great sense of kindness and a will to help. Getting into med school is one of the most competitive, challenging processes one can go through. It’s not enough to just have good grades, it’s not enough to have the most volunteer hours, it’s not enough to have the highest MCAT score—they want you to do everything and do it very, very well. It is as if these schools, on their search for medical Arians, are throwing us all into a cage, locking the door, turning up the heat, and forcing us to duke it out, royal rumble style. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErK4y7GmxL8

I FELT THIS WAS A GOOD METAPHOR FOR MEDICAL SCHOOL APPLICANTS. I CAN HOPE TO BE AS SUCCESSFUL AS GOLDBERG.

It is a situation where “the strongest, the most self-assertive, tend to tread down the weaker,”[2] because they have to.

            Yet, I believe that once I achieve my goal of becoming a doctor, the competitive nature and the urge to dominate one’s fellow man, must stop. It is a profession where for twelve years of training the switch must be turned to the harsh survival mode of nature and then suddenly switch to nurture. 

 IT WILL BE HARD TO SWITCH MY WAY OF THINKING AS A MEDICAL STUDENT TO THAT OF AN ACTUAL DOCTOR. 

work, in the grand scheme of life will rely upon my compassion for people, my ability to see them as more than just “temporary carriers”[3] of genes, and my desire as a leader to encourage the “maintenance of life, the preservation of [our] species, and its further evolution.”[4] Also, if my goal to become a leader is a success, I hope to “give those who desire to rise the aids by which they may rise”[5]— those whose shoes I am currently in—for they will one day hold the key to continuing our health and our growth as a species. In this way, perhaps the meaning of Darwin’s adage will come to be “not so much survival of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many possible to survive.”[6]

---

[1] Steven Pinker, “How the Mind Works”, 472, from: Philip Appleman, Darwin (New York: Norton and Company, 2001).

[2] T.H. Huxley, “Evolution of Ethics”, 502, from: Philip Appleman, Darwin (New York: Norton and Company, 2001).

[3] Edward Wilson, “Sociobiology: The New Synthesis”, 409, from: Philip Appleman, Darwin (New York: Norton and Company, 2001).

[4] Peter Kropotkin, “Mutual Aid”, 399, from: Philip Appleman, Darwin (New York: Norton and Company, 2001).

[5] Andrew Carnegie, “The Gospel of Wealth”, 397, from: Philip Appleman, Darwin (New York: Norton and Company, 2001).

[6] T.H. Huxley, “Evolution of Ethics”, 502, from: Philip Appleman, Darwin (New York: Norton and Company, 2001). 

PHOTOS: 

[1] Lance Alworth, http://www.playitusa.com/nflhistory/images/399.jpg

[2] Me, my own picture

[3] Nature vs. Nurture, http://www.adoptionblogs.com/media/FosterAdoption/nature_nurture.jpg

I ask for directions

I guess I don’t follow the norm when it comes to reading directions. While I definitely understand why “very few people take the time to read instructions”[1]—they can be boring, condescending, and daunting in length—I have always preferred, even insisted upon, directions.

READING INSTRUCTIONS ISN'T JUST FOR DUMMIES. I HAVE A HARD TIME DOING AN ASSIGNMENT WHEN THERE ARE FEW DIRECTIONS. 

 I have been this way ever since I was a little kid. One of my mom’s favorite embarrassing story about me (which she tells at any opportunity) concerns my first homework assignment in first grade. The teacher told us to put a circle around the nouns in a sentence and put a square around the verbs; however, when I got home I couldn’t remember which shapes I was supposed to use. Triangles? Rectangles? Circles? Octagons? It was geometrical hell. My mom tried to communicate to me that it wasn’t the shapes that were important, but the fact that I could distinguish between nouns and verbs. Despite her words of wisdom, I proceeded to have myself a slight panic attack that ended with tears running down my face and blank sentences.

            Fast forward twelve years and I am still very much the same in regards to directions, minus the whole freaking out and crying bit. I want to know what it is that I need to do in order for my work to be a success, and I don’t mind being dictated to in order to achieve this. Following directions has always given me a sense of accomplishment and comfort; as long as I do what they say, my project will not suffer. I am often held hostage by written commands, yet the situation almost always ends peacefully. 

WITHOUT CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS, I OFTEN FEEL CONSTRAINED. I WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT WHAT IS EXPECTED THAT I HARDLY GET ANYTHING DONE. 

However, there are times when the directions go all double agent on me, and that is when the expletives start to fly.

As much as I love and feel the need for directions, I simply can’t stand it when they are unclear, vague, or just flat out incorrect. 

CLOUDY INSTRUCTIONS OFTEN LEAD ME TO BEING LOST AND CONFUSED.

high school teachers would occasionally get pretty annoyed with me and my detailed questions (i.e. “even though the instructions say five pages, is it alright if I go a little over?”). I knew that sometimes what I was asking about was irrelevant, but if I didn’t ask, I wouldn’t be able to work on a project in piece. My main problem with the portfolio instructions was how open ended they were, for they essentially said “copy and paste the code from a website and then write in what you want.” I might as well have been trying to build a spaceship. I wouldn’t have even known what I wanted to put in the code if I had known how to write it. This of course led me to spending a few hours in Dr. Bump’s office with a very “show me how to do this” attitude. I was at the point where I “seemed to prefer someone showing [me] what to do, an instant fix.”[2] My main motivation for going to get help wasn’t to get an “instant fix” though, but to avoid going home only to find out that something doesn’t work.

Even though I spent quite a bit of time in Dr. Bump’s office, I eventually gave up on his method and decided to use iWeb instead (a program that I didn’t initially use because of the fact that there were no instructions provided for it). The directions were simply too vague, or perhaps too advanced, for me to efficiently use them. iWeb conveniently turned out to be very user friendly. I was “able to get it—what it is and how to use it—without expending any effor thinking about it.”[3] Once I began using iWeb, the project took about two hours, about 1/3 of the time I had dedicated to simply figure out the instructions given to us.

I HAVE FOUND THAT MAC PRODUCTS SIMPLIFY COMPLEX PROJECTS, WHICH PUTS A BIG SMILE ON MY FACE. 

[1] Krug, 2006, p. 26

[2] Bump

[3] Krug, 2006, p. 11