SELF-PROMOTION BRAGGING AND BEING BROUGHT UP TO NEVER BLOW YOUR OWN HORN

It is difficult for me to promote my work. I was taught that other people are supposed to say nice things about you. It is always wrong to do it yourself.

So, here I go. Sorry, mom.    

This is a very different blog. It's not about a specific topic. The title, was tongue and cheek, but true. 

It's not for everyone, but if you don't try it, you'll never know.  Although there aren't many regular followers, if you see, over 10 months, I've had 42,979 views.

That sounds good to me. Other people might not think it's anything. But here's the thing.

I'm not looking to sell you anything, make money from this, get advertisers or do anything other than, well, maybe pass on some information. Make you laugh. Or think. Or get mad that I'm an idiot. I don't care.

I've been to lectures, meetings, workshops and have done a lot of reading. If I only learned one new thing, well it was worth it. So, I think reading this is worth it. If it's too long, skim it. I won't be offended. Plus I won't know. How great is that?

And, you will be doing something that will make me feel good. I think that's a win -  win.

So go ahead and give it a try. Subscribe and don't read it. Follow me and don't read it. As I see it, the more numbers you have, the more numbers you get. So, help me get the numbers even if you don't "get" me, maybe it will encourage someone else.

of course I'll sign up to follow you.

  thank you for your support.


Especially those of you who do follow me. It really makes a difference.

SURVIVAL OF THE FATTEST. NO IT'S NOT A TYPO.

 

 

 

This is not a post about overweight people and obesity. I mean no disrespect. Well, -------- I'm not writing with the purpose to blame people for being overweight. It's meant to be satirical, [hopefully, I never know where this will go], but with the world in such a state of unrest, it got me thinking. You all know how dangerous that can be.

 

 

Several years ago I read a fantastic book entitled, "SURVIVAL OF THE SICKEST" by Dr. Sharon Moalem

 

Through examining evolutionary history, he questioned how certain current diseases didn't become extinct and that perhaps, actually helped our ancestors survive unusual conditions.

 

 What started his research was a disease called hemochromatosis.  It's a genetic disorder that causes iron build up in the body. Left unchecked, over years, it will kill you. It killed his grandpa.

 

HISTORY OF A DEADLY DISORDER

Iron Man or hemochromatosis

 

 

From 1347 and over the next few years, the bubonic plague swept across Europe killing somewhere between one third and one half of the population. Can you even imagine? The disease  finds a home in the bodies lymphatic system and it then becomes airborne.  Meaning it spreads like wildfire.

Question

 

So. Why didn't everyone die? They were all exposed. They had to bury the bodies, they had no idea how it was passed or what was causing it.  The answer, it seems, may have been due to the disease of hemochromatosis What? How can they "know" that?

 

A study of the plague in St. Botolph's parish in 1625 indicated that more men between fifteen and twenty-four were killed by the disease than any others. This outnumbered women of the same age by a factor of two to one. Wha??  That makes little sense since everyone knows that strong, young men are more likely to survive illness. Right. Apparently, no.

 

The men who had the hemochromatosis weren't affected because of their iron levels.* If you want to know the particulars, read the book. If is wonderful and explains things like epigenetics and he does it so you can understand it. Not remember it if you're me, but you might.*  They procreated back then, long before the disease killed them. So, their having a "bad" gene, saved their lives at the time. And passed along dna that was a sickness.

 

The same seems to be true for Diabetes. Since you all know, that my memory is for shit, and it's an entire technical chapter, I'll do my best to try not to give too much misinformation.  Eleven thousand years ago there was an ice age in northern Europe. It happened quickly, so many thousands of humans froze. So, how did the ones who didn't die, survive? Some of course, through adaptation. You know, building huts and making warm clothing. That worked for some. Dare I say the smart ones?

 

                  

 Research on dead bodies ,that have since been excavated and f course found frozen, yuck and ooo shows some interesting possibilities.  Science wise, people begin to shiver and that burns the sugar stored in your muscles and creates heat.  You also need to pee. Remember, I'm just skimming. So the people who created more sugar and peed a lot survived. It seems that today, the predisposition to Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes is related to the human cold response. So Diabetes has some deep connection to the response to cold. That would make it seem that those who had a genetic predisposition to be able to deal with the cold, survived. Then, was then passed on their dna which is related to Diabetes. Since most people no longer have to deal with cold in that way, the gene has created a disease which is no longer an asset.

 

 

In any event, for a number of current illnesses, people survived because of that gene, then passed it on generation after generation.  However, as climate and other factors changed, the genes were no longer assets. However, due to modern science, many people are able to survive now, even with a "defective" gene.

 

BACK TO OBESITY AND SURVIVAL

 

Perhaps if the world were a stable place, obese people would reproduce and either genetically or through conditioning, produce more obese people and I wouldn't give a rats ass. Not that I would even know where to find one. blch.  Well, actually, that seems to be what's happening.

Personally, I don't care. I thank God it's not something I have/am?. Being obese can't be easy. But that's not my point.

 

The government is upset with obesity only because of the cost the health care. The government only cares about us if we cost them money.

 

 

THE WORLD IS AT WAR

Okay, maybe not every country right now. Although it seems that there are always several wars going on at any given time, and if one ends, another begins.

 

What has this got to do with us?

 

A lot

 

Right now we have troops all over the world. Fighting, keeping peace (yeah that's rich), and fighting. Did I mention we have men and women fighting wars? Except they aren't wars. Wars usually have names. Well, anyway, we're fighting and losing, beautiful, wonderful American men and women.

 

We don't have a draft because it would be very unpopular. Even though statistics show that when we have a draft, we get a higher grade of solders. Again, no disrespect. Do a fact check if you don't believe me.

 

My mind wanders to the, what ifs?

 Like what if, we really had to mobilize to save ourselves from the evils of terrorists like Isis? {Or whatever they are and however they spell it.}

 

 

First, if we did do a draft, who would go? Generally, we have requirements for the draftees. Right?  I think one of those requirements is to be physically fit. So, would they change that if they couldn't get enough people fit to draft? I don't know.

 

One scenario is that we send every fit person between the ages of 18 and 45 to fight. I can't predict the outcome. At the very least. Lots of people will die.

 

However, let's say," GOD FORBID", we lose. Their Army is now coming to our shores and we have to defend ourselves. How well is that going to work?

The lean, mean, killing machines are gone. Who's left?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And over they come. What a grand resistance force we have left behind. Who's left to fight for our Children??

 

 

okay. that's pretty depressing.

 

 

AFTER THEY WIN THEY DON'T INVADE.  I like that idea better.

 

Well, thank God for small favors. We are left alone. Except for, maybe the gene pool has changed. The people of reproductive ages are, well, mostly obese , or otherwise unfit with other diseases, disorders and whatever it was that kept them from the fray.

 

And that's how Obesity survives. The gene pool of Americans that once was, no longer exists. I suppose those left standing, or sitting, can figure out how to run a country, so the USA will still be able to fly its flag. I never ever suggested that the obese are not smart. The two are not correlated at all.

 

And that's the story of how the fattest survive.

 

THE END

  ps. I just liked the title. that happens sometimes. I think of a great title, and then,  well, that's it. I truly did not mean to offend anyone. I'm tired of governments. it's all their fault.

DO YOU HAVE GOOD LUCK? BAD LUCK? OR NO LUCK AT ALL?

Apparently, the concept of luck has been with humans for a really long time. I hadn't even thought of that until I looked for a symbol to illustrate this post. This one combines several cultures.

So, what is "luck"?  According to my dear friend Webster, Luck is: 1. The seemingly chance happening of events which affect one: fortune; fate.
2. good fortune, success, etc. (hmm. should a dictionary be allowed to use the term etc. ?   It seems that when you're business is to define something, that's a cop out. Anyway) 

The rest goes on to use some colloquialisms, and to define lucky, which is basically the same, but an adjective.

I like that it said, "the seemingly chance" happening. This would suggest, at least to me, that they are hedging their bets and not saying that luck is definitely random.           And it would seem not be all that random.

I'm not looking that up. It means by chance, with no design and completely by happenstance.



 


That being said.  I've read about at least three or four people who have won the big lottery twice. TW#ICE!!

When I lived in NY I sent in money to play a buck a week for a year. In that year, I won $1. That was it. I'm sure you know friends who get those quick picks or whatever games they have and often win something. They get more money and usually give it back.  That's the part that doesn't seem so random. But I digress.

What kind of luck do you think you have? Or should I ask what you feel you have?  Sorry, I had to throw that in.

 I have given luck some thought.  I believe there are many different types of luck. Some examples are good luck, good bad luck, bad luck, terrible luck, no luck and as I write, I'll probably think of some more.

Personally, I think I have good, bad luck. You'll no doubt need an example.


Good luck, is never having a flat tire. Good bad luck, is having a flat tire in your driveway, or in the olden days, in front of your school where you could make a phone call and stand outside in the rain for 40 minutes.  Yeah, maybe that wasn't so lucky.  Bad luck is having a flat tire in the ghetto very late at night without a cell phone or gun. And probably being a person who is white.
No luck, is not having a car.

I think you might be getting the idea.  I think some of it does depend upon your attitude. You can choose to see all negative things as bad luck, or karma or fate, or you can look at the positive side to it and feel better about what happened.

You also can help your luck just like anything else. It is true, you have to be in it to win it. You can't say you never got a job if you never applied. Right?

I will grant you that some people just seem to have a shit load of bad luck dumped on them. It's hard for me to understand sometimes because I haven't dealt with those types of things. You know, being homeless and jobless.

I do know some people though who seem to have a hand in their bad luck.  You know, gambling or drinking the mortgage money. Some people have a disease that if not checked, will contribute to lousy luck. Everyone knows people like this. We all think we know how to help them, if they would only listen to us, they could get out of the mess. And sometimes that's true.

We also know that people don't listen to advice and maybe they need to experience this shit so they can learn something. At least I hope so. I'd hate to see so much suffering for no reason.

 

As I'm writing this, I started to think about one of the words I used. Karma.  Back to Webster. In Sanskrit, it meant fate. In Buddhism & Hinduism, a person's actions in one reincarnation thought of determining his fate in the next.


Even if you don't believe in reincarnation, you might understand that when things seem to be bad luck, they may be the universe or God's way of challenging you. Having bad things happen, losing, making mistakes, these are how we all learn. So maybe it's a teaching method.



One thing I do know is that there are very few things in this world that I have any control over.  Someone I love dies. I need surgery. You need surgery. Your house burns down. The list is endless.

The only thing you have control over is how you see it. Your attitude. My attitude. That's it.

One of my favorite quotes is by Aldus Huxley, he said, "Experience isn't what happens to you, it's what you do with what happens to you". (I was close)

           

ANSWER TO THE TITLE QUESTION:

You have, whatever kind of luck, you believe you have.  You can take that to the bank.

IS THINKING YOU'RE IN LOVE, THE SAME AS FEELING YOU'RE IN LOVE? IF NOT, DOES IT MATTER?

I am not even going to try to attempt to define or explain "love". For the purpose of this post, I will focus on the notion of "romantic love".



Renee Descartes has been quoted as saying, "I think, therefore, I am".

Well, I'm quite certain my dog Chloe, didn't think. Does that mean "she wasn't"?
 or since she couldn't think, she didn't  Exist?



 
I suppose, for humans, thinking is somehow linked to being. In one of my psych texts, there are 22 listings for cognition (the fancy word for thought or thinking). It's one of the things in psychology that has been heavily researched. Don't get me wrong. That doesn't mean they know didly squat, but they are at least working at understanding it.

 In the text book, PSYCHOLOGY making connections, by Feist & Rosenberg,  defines cognition as:
  Mental processes involved in acquiring, processing and storing knowledge.

It defines feelings as: not listed. Instead, I went to emotions.   Wow. There were 43 sub-topics here. Does that mean they know more about emotion than cognition?  Beats me.

 Back to a definition: Brief, acute changes in conscious experience and physiology that occur, in a personally meaningful situation.

It also states the psychological use of the term affect refers to a variety of emotional phenomena, including, emotions, mood, and affective traits.





Moods are, transient fluctuations and tend to last longer than most emotions. Huh?

Affective traits are stable, predispositions toward certain types of emotional responses, such as anger. Would that make love an affective trait? Again. Don't know.


An aside. I used to know this stuff. Not by heart, but I knew it. Looking at it now give me pause. Why does everything have to be so damned complicated?


Although, if I think of love as an emotion, it's no surprise, given the definition of emotion, why there is so much drama surrounding it. It's acute and brief. It's related to moods.


My current definition of romantic love is an acute, unstable mood that affects you consciously and physiologically in a meaningful situation.

Is that okay with you? It makes as much sense as the rest of this stuff. I'm okay with it until they bring in the part about a meaningful situation. Where does that fit in? But, I shall go on.

THINKING YOU'RE IN LOVE:

According to our definition, this means you are  experiencing a mental process involved in acquiring, processing and storing knowledge.

Meaning?  Your thoughts are processing what you believe you know about the person you are, .... what?  Thinking about loving?  Or, maybe that brief, emotional change in your conscious experience about a particular person, has triggered a thought process about the person so you will be knowledgeable about him or her.

So, would you react differently to someone saying, "I think I love you" or to saying, "I love you".  That's about as close as I can get to showing there is a difference. The psychobabble was not helpful.

This was certainly not what I had in mind when I thought of this topic.

To me, thinking is a calculated process that involves decision making and is supposed to be devoid of emotion.  It it's not an emotional response, my question really was, more like,   could you think you loved someone, base on facts rather than emotions?

I'VE A FEELING, I'M FALLING IN LOVE:

At least on one thing, I'm clear. Thoughts don't involve emotions.  It seemed to say that, but I'm confused. And if I'm confused, and I'm the expert, oh boy!

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that everyone who reads this has been in love. Or thought they were in love?  How did you figure out the difference?
I'm guessing it's in hindsight. While you are in love, you are feeling in love.
If it goes south, as it often can, when looking back, you may say you only "thought" you were in love. Or, you may have a very broken heart and be feeling bereft.

I can't go with the definitions here. True, it is a physiological experience. Your heart palpitates. You may feel flushed. If there's lust involved, which if it's romantic, for your sake, I hope there is, you will feel tingles in your sexual regions. Which, are actually all over your body. Another topic.

You can't stop "thinking" about the person. Or should that be feeling?  I can't say.


BIG PSYCOLOGICAL QUESTION!

WHAT COMES FIRST? THOUGHT OR EMOTION?

I remember when I was teaching psychology, only four years ago, there was, at least in the text book I was using, no definitive answer. I recall the three possibilities that at the time were hypothesized.

The last edition I have of that book was 2010.  I remembered one of the names and was able to find the page. It's in Introduction to Psychology: GATEWAYS TO MIND AND BEHAVIOR   by Coon & Mitterer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 I believed they all happen at the same time. I think of a situation.  A tiger charging at you.

IMAGINE:   You're minding your own business and out of nowhere, a huge tiger is yards away, staring you in the face.

The response your body/mind has is:

1. Your arousal system says, oh crap. Fear. Tiger. Run.
2. Your Thalamus  kicks your nervous system arousal in gear, you run because you're feeling fear.
3. Your arousal system says, oh "there's a tiger. I should be afraid." Your behavior says, run.

4. You shit your pants and the Tiger leaves because your behavior disgusted him.

See. I told you before that humor is very important.


my hypothesis:

You cannot separate thoughts and feelings. Or cognitions and emotions. Or egg whites, but that just may be me.

CONCLUSION:

It doesn't matter if you think you love someone, or you feel you love someone or know you love someone. In either case, your life may be enhanced or possibly wrecked. Love will affect you regardless of how it is labeled or comes about.

Lastly, to quote Milton, who it was, I believe, said,

"  'tis better to have loved and lost then never to have loved at all."

And I bet we all have the scars to prove it. Have a beloved day.