Americans and everyone else

After a few hundred pages of International Political Economy, with lots of debatable generalizations about what Americans know and think about themselves and the rest of the world. I am glad this book is almost over. Last time I checked I was still an American, born and raised here, and I know I don't fit the stereotype these authors are so fond of constructing. And, for all that it may lend weight to other stereotypes, the room full of American kids in my economics class didn't fit the stereotype the professor threw out so casually about students 'like us' finding the mathematics integrated into economic theory daunting and unpleasant. Really, there were only a handful of us who seemed inclined towards qualitative theory in the whole room, and all of us who are not the statistician/modeller economist types have still completed calculus. Ok, so most of my political science colleagues may not have finished calculus, but in general, the broad generalizations about Americans need reexamination. Just as Third-World countries may be reinforcing their inferior positions in the world through self-sabotage and other such mechanisms, to fit the image they have absorbed of their people, so too Americans may be absorbing increasingly naive world views and growing lazy because these traits fit with what everybody says Americans are like.

Last day of another decade, sort of...

...depending on whether the one who is counting started at the beginning of year one or at the end.

A decade ago today I was in London, at the Millenium Dome, and apparently we left the dome at most an hour before the security incident that made the news that same day. By then I was walking along the Thames with my then-boyfriend, to a bench next to the Thames Barrier, my favorite architectural landmark in London, and possibly the world. Ten years later, I have been out of the country only once, as far north as Whistler, north of Vancouver, B.C., Canada. So, decadal resolution #1 has to be TRAVEL. This next ten years, while the world is still relatively at peace and fuel and security concerns have not yet prevented average citizens from travelling overseas, I must at least get back to Britain. I really want to walk the length of Hadrian's Wall, and go hiking in Scotland. If possible I still want to earn a PhD in Aberystwyth, though perhaps I am straying away from rural ecology too much already. Hmmm. No idea what use a degree in political science earned in Colorado could possibly be to a life in Britain, but at least theory should be useful, I hope.

Resolution #2 is a bit more complicated. I am turning 31 this year, and while I might not exactly prefer to live in a classic romantic novel, I know I am missing out on a rather significant part of human life in not experiencing much romance. Unfortunately, romance is complicated, stressful and sometimes downright miserable. I am, for now, in a community that tends to value romance less than the general public, in a world that seems to prefe bickering and complaining to romance anyway. Getting a graduate degree is important, and so long as I am in school, it is important to focus on school. However, school and degrees are tools for life, not life itself. Eventually, in this next decade, real people and my relationships with them need to take precedence entirely over academic life and books.

Resolution #3, a fairly frivalous one compared to the first two, made its way into the list because it won't go away. I want to meet Josh Groban, the singer, and not just for a few seconds. My short-list of favorite celebrities has mostly formed recently, within the past two years or so, since I really hadn't had one before then. Most of the men on that list are actors, and I know little about who they really are. Maybe I would like them, any maybe not. I'd love to meet them as well, but the more I know about Mr. Groban, the more he seems like the people I already know and like. Right now our careers are opposite in shape, so that he is at the height of his career now, while mine is still building, and by the time I am the intellectual giant I am constructing, he will be winding down. Somewhere in the middle, maybe, there's a chance we might be able to meet as equals, and if the Universe wills it, maybe we might even strike up a lasting friendship.

The sun is now setting on the last day of 2009, and as the Universe eases into the new year, may life continue to improve with the ages.

Chess and Personal Philosophy

As is true for most great art, the musical Chess, leaves a lot of the interpretation of its themes and story to the viewer. The characters are real enough, and through their songs and lines, fleshed out enough to provide a believable scenario, yet it is not definite what exactly the motivations are for these characters. Certainly, if I was writing a professional piece sufficiently important to bother the performers about it, it would be illuminating to ask Josh, Idina, Adam and Kerry what their characters' thoughts and motivations were when they were singing these parts, but short of that, I am nonetheless beginning to doubt strongly that Tim Rice in his synopsis for the insert adequately and accurately describes the story that was really playing itself out on the stage at the Royal Albert Hall.

I have listened to the entire track-list of Chess in Concert several times in the past 24 hours, and I really can't hear Anatoly as being dishonest in his assertion of his patriotism to 'Mother Russia,' and it is really not surprising when his relationship with Florence sours that he would choose to return to the USSR. Even within the rather cynical, pessimistic idea of the "Nobody's on Nobody's Side" theme, I would have to be either strongly biased against the USSR/ Russia or would have to be in a really bad mood to think Anatoly would reject his homeland so completely for a woman he just met. Florence, meanwhile, seems charmed by Anatoly, but I'm not convinced love has much to do with her running off with him. She is loyal, but not exactly in touch with her feelings, and no wonder when we consider her past. She has a lot she is avoiding, and I get the sense that she is attaching herself as a loyal supporter to great men rather than looking out for herself.

Freddie, bored with chess itself, has been dabbling in manipulation of real people as an outgrowth of his boardgame. Quite plausibly Anatoly, Freddie's match intellectually, recognizes some of this, though he does not catch on that Freddie is allowing Anatoly and Florence to become acquainted to gain a hold on Anatoly, just in case. This, to Freddie, is not a moral or ethical issue, because it is still all just a game. Really, until the Russians try to play Freddie as a piece of their own, Freddie remains emotionally detached from this whole story, a man apart from the events as they unfold, "watching the game" and "controlling it" and fully believing that he can have Florence back whenever he decides he wants to have her again. Just as Freddie is outside the story, Anatoly is not a full participant in the story; he is so content with his chess that he has allowed the Russian government, his wife, his mistress, and everyone else around him play him to their various ends, not all of them nefarious, but none of his actual choosing.

It is debatable even within this interpretation whether Freddie ever really reconnects with humanity. He does, it seems, decide that he would rather have Anatoly win, rather than complete his ruin, but despite his soul-searching, he may be so far gone that there is no hope for him. Perhaps this is why he pushes Anatoly to win, so that he can live vicariously through the newly awakened Russian, who can and does claim his freedom to enjoy his own life on his own terms. Is Freddie a free actor ever?

Interestingly, as far as I can recall, only Anatoly ever says the word 'love' in this production, once about the USSR and once to Florence shortly before their relationship falls apart.

Chess

I am sure I'll be mildly obsessed with the plot and implications of the musical Chess, as recorded in concert in London, in 2008. For once, this is a musical selection I would have bought even if Josh Groban had not been cast as one of the principal singers. While it sounds like a strong backing has not existed yet for a touring company to put this show on as a proper musical. [ who needs a dream? ... now I'm wher I want to be and who I want to be and doing what I said I would . . .] While Josh does not always sound as natural as full-time Broadway singers, he is very convincing as Anatoly, a nice, quiet chess player who falls in love with someone and begins on a path towards conscious self-definition. Actually his rendering of this character reminds me of a few people I have known who, if they were international chess players, would be a lot like this version of Anatoly.

I have been amusing myself this evening with the realization that the entirety of Act 2 is in fact a sort of chess game, the 6th game Anatoly never played the previous year against Freddie because Freddie didn't stay to play it out. This puts Anatoly Sergeyevich in the position of one of the king pieces, trying to keep from being placed in checkmate. Freddie, who Anatoly suggested in Act 1 was a clever player maneuvering and strategizing in real life as well as at the game table, has been playing still, ever since his girlfriend Florence ran off with Anatoly. It does beg th equestion of whether someone is playing Freddie, and certainly the CIA and the KGB try to use him, but this play against Anatoly's queen, Florence, fails, and perhaps Freddie knew it would. His final play is to talk to Anatoly about his opponent's game, and reinforcing to Anatoly that his greatest skill is as a chess player. This may well have tipped the balance, pushing Anatoly not to throw the game, and allowing Freddie to win his ultimate game. I am still debating parts of this concept, but Svetlana would almost obviously have to be the opposing queen, and Florence the queen on Anatoly's side.

I actually did google Chess in google Scholar, and found literally nothing, but no doubt there are blogs and reviews that pursue this interpretation of this lovely underperformed story.

On a minor note ( :)Yes, much of the musical utilizes minor keys, but no pun intended, really) I find the song Where I Want to Be quite powerful, and while with the ultra supportive and considerate Grobanites, Josh Groban may not feel much like this in his own personal celebrity career, I suspect the he has had days where this song would be deeply felt. This song captures very beautifully a part of the psychology of celebrity in general, and I can't help but recall while listening to Josh singing it, the whirlwind of attention that began his career on the music scene. And, for anyone for whom singing is their "primary talent" there is probably at least a small voice constantly in the background asking what happens if their voice should fail. Josh did try college, and as of the last time I checked, he still had not finished a degree yet in anything, so if he were to fail physically, by losing his hearing, or getting permanent damage to his throat, he has little outside the music industry to fall back on, not even a degree in music production. I'll bet, actually, that he has had quite a few days and nights when this song was exactly what he was feeling.

Gaussian-like distribution of compatibility and its implications for dating

I vaguely recall having written this out before, but if so it was quite a while back, and much less developed.

While young people have always had at least some range of possible mates to choose from, modern Western norms permit a much wider range of choices, and a much broader span of appropriate ages at which to make such choices. Indeed, when remarriage after divorce or spousal death is included, most Western unmarried people are potentially mate-seeking from pre-teen years through extreme old age. Certainly the nature of the marriage relationship shifts depending on the life-stages of the people involved, so the relationships that fall under the umbrella-term 'marriage' include nearly platonic companionate arrangements among the elderly, traditional first marriages between young adults, and remarriage involving all the ex-spouses and existing children from any previous marriages. Since the desirable traits that determine a good match are also likely to shift depending on life-stages, the exact traits that make two people compatible are not only hard to determine precisely, but they are likely to be in a state of flux. Still, it is possible to describe and discuss the gestalt concept of general compatibility between two people.

Just as personality is determined by a large number of factors, some not conducive to measurement, compatibility is built up from the many and various traits of personality of both parties, plus the dynamics of interaction between them. Not only are details like shared hobbies and interests important to the overall compatibility of a relationship, but also the reactions of each party to these shared traits contributes to how well those two people interact. The sum of all these factors creates a degree of compatibility, which can be roughly ranked against that obtained for other relationships either party has. For instance, I could easily rank the compatibility of an old high school classmate with whom I was only ever slightly acquainted as much lower than my compatibility with a guy I fell in love with and dated, regardless of how long that dating lasted. Good friends of mine share higher compatibility with me, and practically everyone I meet and exchange pleasant conversation with is at least somewhat compatible, if only barely.

One could in theory gather up all these rankings for different relationships one has, and graph their distribution, and the result would likely be a skewed Gaussian curve, weighted towards compatibility because it is less likely that people meet very incompatible people. The very act of meeting someone implies a higher chance of higher compatibility, because it suggests the existence of at least some similar habits, interests and preferences. Charting all possible pair-wise relationships between myself and all people on Earth, a more even Gaussian distribution is likely to result.

So how does this have much to do with dating? My friends are all going to fall in the more compatible end of the compatibility distribution, and the closer and more compatible the relationship, the further from the mean the compatibility will be. Looking at the height of the curve at greater compatibility, a person whose compatibility with me is above 2 standard deviations from the mean in this distribution is one of a rather small set of people, relative to the total amount of people I might easily term friends. The 'One,' that perfect ideal mate that may or may not ever actually exist, would be even further out from the mean, and in between these two lie a lot of men and women with whom I am extremely compatible. The men in this group, if I happen to also find them attractive, might easily be potential dates, though it need not be the case that high compatibility always includes mutual attraction. Still, many of these men would, in the normal course of a lifetime, be at least considered as potential boyfriends. Also, if I have only met people who were at most 98% of the compatibility of that ideal 'One', and am, as far as I know, in love with a perfect guy in that 98% ranking, I might find I am not in love after all, and that the man at 98% is nothing compared to some new guy who turns up at 98.9%.
Of course, all this implies a sort of rational comprehensive decision strategy in my choice of dates, and in reality this never is possible. I've met quite a few higher-compatibility people so far in my graduate school career, because in choosing a field that interests me, I have preselected the people I am likely to meet. And, among these people, also not surprisingly, there are several men who are particularly interesting, and seem likely to be particularly compatible. However, I know practically nothing about these men. My estimations of compatibility in my relationships with them derive from all available data, but that data is not sufficient for me, or anyone else, to accurately determine a) which is most compatible with me, b) whether any of them are more compatible with me than my existing exboyfriends, or c) whether any of them are compatible enough that they would not wind up becoming exboyfriends too if I dated them. The only way to really generate good answers to these questions would be to get to know all these men much better, or to date them, one by one, till one man happens to not become an ex.

Taken in its extreme, this would suggest that one ought to not date at all, unless the 'One' shows up, which could not be recognizable without dating at least the potential 'One' long enough to not break up, or alternatively that it is simply impossible for a girl who wants to marry to ever have really good friendships with attractive men. This latter argument has been championed by quite a few people I have met, who can't imagine how gender relations could work any other way. For them an attractive interesting single man is a date, or an ex, or someone they have yet to meet, or perhaps he is already married, or gay, and thus not accessible. My approach, equally as foreign to them as theirs was to me, is almost entirely opposite.

My dating 'policy' works towards minimizing the number of exes I accumulate, on the notion that every ex I gain is a potential lost friendship. If a guy was compatible enough for me to date him, he was compatible enough to be a good friend, too, though the process of breaking up can render even high-compatibility relationships nearly intolerable. One can only have one boyfriend, but one can have an infinite number of friends, and while friendships wax and wane, they need never break up. So long as it is clear that what is going on is not dating, it is easily possible to hang out with all the guys a girl might otherwise date, and the only aspect of dating that cannot comfortably be enjoyed in these friendships is that of romantic physical intimacy. And, if it is not necessary to date these men, it is possible to fully develop good close friendships with all these men simultaneously. As my 'pro-dating' friends point out, this also means I am never going to kiss most if not all of them, let alone sleep with them, and I can't really argue otherwise, but at least if I ever ended up dating even just one or two of them, it is more likely that the resulting relationships would be more enduring and satisfying. And if this sort of dating relationship breaks up, it has a foundation enough that a lasting friendship can still result afterward.

Mood specificity

It is probably good that men are not in touch with their emotions so much sometimes, because some moods one can be in are pretty unrealistic. Like tonight. I am most definitely not interested in going out anywhere, with anyone, tonight; even if the man I am still quietly infatuated with called me up for a date, I would not have the energy for it tonight. Even a date at home would be too much, since I would be at least somewhat on the spot as hostess, especially with that guy, or really with either guy I was interested in this term. Maybe if I had been in the habit of having friends over just to "chill," I could handle that, but not entirely happily. Nor, annoyingly enough, am I in the mood to be home alone, no matter how many movies, BBC series, internet distractions and books I have, the cat is not sufficient company. I am in the mood for a quiet evening at home with a long term boyfriend/husband with whom I have been involved for a few years, despite the fact that such a person doesn't currently exist.

Contemplations on 'Access' and music

I wonder if maybe at a part of my brain's chemical cycling, when the potential for depression symptoms is becoming greater, the arrangement of neurotransmitters in my head makes the more emotionally charged part of my memory more easily accessible. Emotions involve a more central portion of the brain, and this part is where a lot of neurotransmitter imbalances are traced that seem linked to mood disorders. On a normal day, while certain words, phrases and songs are linked to my memories, I have more control over suppression of irrelevant thought patterns. If I am listening to Meatloaf's "Objects in the Rear-view Mirror", I may think about what parallels exist between this narrative and my own past, but I do not recall my own memories in the process, and am not really emotionally affected by the song. However, in this phase of my brain's functioning, when I listen to this song, I get a more complete recollection of my memories relating to this song, and all the emotions linked to these memories. I can be concentrating on the song or just hearing it in the background, and I get the same effect. In practice this just means maybe I should not play Meatloaf while I am in this phase, but it may also suggest more of how the brain may look in bipolar people during cycling.

Interestingly enough, while these songs that evoke personal, disturbing memories are quite potent in my current state, many other songs that in a growing depressive state could induce emotion, such as Whiskey Lullaby (Brad Paisley and Alison Kraus), have no effect on me. This reactivity seems limited to stimuli that can link to memories, and is not just me listening to too many sad songs. If I had it in my collection, Quiet Riot's "Thunderbirds" might be expected to elicit a stronger reaction, as it would link to my middle school years, and the song sequence from Peaceful Valley, that were sung after campfire by the staph. Nickle Creek's "The Lighthouse's Tale", which I am listening to now, can make me rather moody if I am more solidly in depression mode, but right now it is simply something to sing along to.

Unfortunately, I am not sure this observation is easily universalized by research. I can observe my own patterns easily enough, but I am hyper-aware of my own mental states, which most people are not, and I have a psychology degree to apply to my observations. Plus, most importantly, I have access to me own memories and reactions, to be able to tease apart the differences between my moods and thought processes. Even with very, very articulate and observant test subjects, I have no idea how this sort of information could be gathered accurately and reliably from multiple subjects to establish a pattern and analyze it further. Maybe with simultaneous brain scans and self-reporting I could correlate brain activity with articulated evoked responses while subjects are listening to a randomized audio playlist, including the subject's list of personally evocative songs, a set of other emotional songs, and some other control tracks (patriotic songs, lullabies, and songs the subject has indicated as uninteresting). Now all I need is a brain scanner, all the audio equipment, subjects, and all the necessary documentation for human-subjects research.