Monday, September 28, 2009

World's Worst Songs

On my Facebook page, I have assembled a list of songs I like, but my critical analysis would not be complete if I did not create a list of songs I hate. Too many hit songs have lyrics that suck, and I'd like to give them credit.

To qualify for my list of World's Worst Songs, a song must (1) be a former hit, (2) have compelling music, (3) have words that are extraordinarily stupid if you analyze them without the music. My list is short, but I will add to it as new candidates come to me. (You can also email me your suggestions.)

Waiting On The World To Change by John Meyer.
Listen to the words. Translation: "We know the world needs to change, but we prefer to sit around and do nothing." Great social message!
Greatest Love of All by Whitney Houston
This song is a compilation every conceivable adolescent cliche, starting with "I believe the children are our future." Duh! There's no obvious connection between the cliches. If you throw in enough of them, every teenager's going to find something to identify with. Basically, though, the song is about "me, me, me," which also helps sell it to teens.
You're Beautiful by James Blunt
"I saw your face in a crowded place, and I don't know what to do." This guy is beauty-fixated. I mean, this girl could be a total moron, and he don't care. The purest form of love, it seems, is based purely on appearance where you never actually communicate with the object of your desire.
Lady in Red by Chris De Burgh
Everything in this song is about superficial beauty. Not one word about this lady's abilities or anything she actually does, only about how she looks to the singer and others in the room. Complete and utter idiocy.
ALL Rap Music
The whole genre is crap! These guys know how to rhyme, nothing else.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Glenn's Photo Management System

One of my Facebook friends, Gavin Payne, writes:
How about a new blog entry on how you process all of your images, index them, make the libraries, add text to them etc?
As you wish. Let's see if I can give you the highlights in 15 minutes...
  1. I take a LOT of frames, only a tiny percentage of which I ever show to the world. The pictures are all free on a digital camera, so why not?
  2. On my laptop, I store photos in directories by year and month and setting. e.g. inside directory "2009" is a directory "September" which has a directory "BAR HARBOR".
  3. Inside the setting, I have four working directories: "raw", "web", "UPLOAD" and "UNPROCESSED".
  4. When I download the photos from my camera, they go into "UNPROCESSED" and are immediately deleted from the camera.
  5. I go through UNPROCESSED at my convenience, looking for good photos. I'll first "cherrypick" the very best photos, then I'll go through the rest of them as I have time.
  6. Each photo I choose will be cropped, corrected for color/darkness/etc and resized to 604 pixels across, as suitable for Facebook. (I use Corel Paint Shop, the cheaper equivalent of Photoshop.)
  7. For the clear, crisp quality, I "sharpen" at 604 pixels. (Makes all the difference in the world.)
  8. I save the edited photo under the same name in "UPLOAD".
  9. I move the raw photo I just edited into "raw", along with any original photos I know I won't be doing anything.
  10. Facebook is my main album medium. (I once had my own album system, but Facebook does it better.) After I upload the "UPLOAD" photos to Facebook, I move them into the "web" directory.
  11. If I have time to edit the whole batch, I'll end up having all the original photos in "raw", the upload photos in "web" and the other two directories empty. Then I delete those two directories and have only "raw" and "web" left. I'm done!
  12. More likely, however, I will still have some "UNPROCESSED" photos left by the time I move to the next project. I could come back to these later, but probably not. C'est la vie!
  13. As I pass through my parent's house once or twice a month, I back up my new monthly directories onto some terrabyte hard disks I have. Once I have backed each directory up on two or more media, I can delete the "raw" directories. (I keep the "web" directories because they are small.)
  14. My on-line index (http://roamingphotos.com/main) is of my own construction using Perl. (Remember that I used to be a programmer.) I can't easily explain how it works, but it all routes back to the albums on Facebook.
  15. For every album, Facebook provides a public URL that anyone can use to access the album, even if they are not on Facebook. (Look at the bottom of the album's page.) I use that address but don't have complete confidence that the address won't change. (It has in the past.) To protect myself from future address changes, I have an intermediate system that translates my own preferred address into Facebook's address. For example...


    I have a spreadsheet table I maintain that has both addresses, as well as some other info about each album, and this is what my online indexes are generated from.
  16. My Facebook albums roughly correspond to my monthly directories (e.g. "Bar Harbor"). At the end of each directory, I have a bumper image...
    On that page, I provide my preferred public URL, as well as links to my photo home page and any other albums that are related to this one.
That's my system (or at least all I can think of).

Most people can do everything I can do except the fancy index, but most people don't have hundreds of albums like I do, so it doesn't really matter. You can always create a similar index in html using Facebook's public address, since it has been stable now for over a year. (You could just copy my table at http://roamingphotos.com/main, edit the html and plug in your own album information. I won't object.)

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Kilroy Café #52: "The Shamanism of Luxury"

Here is the latest Kilroy Café philosophy essay. You can click on the image above for a larger version or print it out on a single page via the pdf file. The full text is also below. Also see other Kilroy Café newsletters and the KilroyCafe Twitter Feed.


The Shamanism of Luxury

By GLENN CAMPBELL

In ancient shamanic traditions, one could supposedly gain power or good luck by ingesting, touching or possessing certain sacred or magical objects. A cannibal might eat the flesh of his enemy to gain his power. A pretty stone could be used as talisman to attract a mate. Even today, endangered animals are poached throughout the world for certain body parts that are seen to have medicinal properties when consumed.

Western society today generally rejects such beliefs as unscientific and destructive. Ground horn of rhinoceros is not an effective cure for cancer, except to the extent that any placebo is. The danger is that it displaces more effective treatments—not to mention threatening the rhino!

There is one form of shamanism, however, that remains strong in our society: the market for luxury goods. We don't necessarily believe that a Louis Vuitton purse or filet mignon dinner will bring us good luck, but there is always an implied belief that consuming the special product—ingesting, touching or possessing it—will somehow make us more valuable ourselves.

Behind most consumer products is a practical function. The function of a wristwatch is to tell time. The purpose of food is energy and nutrition. The role of a car is to get to you from place to place with minimal maintenance.

The luxury market says that function is not enough. The product has to have a right brand, the right cachet. It has to convey the impression that you are important, distinguished. That's where the shamanism comes in. By consuming the product, you believe you are gaining some sort of magical power.

Advertisers never exactly say what the magical power is (so they can never be accused of lying). Instead, they imply it with imagery, such as a gorgeous model displaying the product in a prestigious setting. And no one purchasing the product would acknowledge a belief in magic, but that's what their purchase implies.

You can buy a wristwatch for $10 or $10,000. What do you get for the extra $9990? Do you get a more accurate timepiece? Only marginally so—and how accurate does a wristwatch have to be? The purchaser might claim that the luxury watch conveys a good impression to business and social contacts, but does anyone you meet really care about your watch compared to your words and personality? A valuable watch has to be protected and locked up. It limits your movements through the streets. In functional terms, it's a pain in the ass.

There's only one reason you would own a $10,000 timepiece: the implied belief that possessing such an object makes you a better person.

There's always a cover story. The purchaser may speak of the watch as an "investment" or talk about its beauty or workmanship, but it's all a sham. The fact is, the purchaser suffers from low self-esteem and the luxury product is a magical talisman to salve it. "If I own such a valuable object, I must be valuable, too."

Luxury shamanism permeates our society, not just in the objects labeled "luxury" but in excess of all kinds: the premium hamburger, the exotic tourist destination, the expensive wine. It persists because of people's natural affinity for shamanic solutions to their problems. Buying something always seems much easier than actually changing one's life, which involves far more anxiety.

The other reason luxury grips our society is there's huge profit in it. There is little money in selling people things they actually need, because this is usually a commodity business where competition keeps prices low. Slap some premium cachet on the product, like a designer label or vintage year, and suddenly you can sell the same thing for many times more. This obscene profit margin fuels the advertizing that dominates the world around us. The luxury sellers are out there hawking, cajoling, pushing their products on you, while the things-you-really-need sellers can't afford to. You have to find them.

Take luxury out of our economy, and there wouldn't be much economy, but that doesn't mean it's healthy. When people seek talismans for their problems, they aren't taking real actions to solve them. They are burdened by luxury, not freed by it, and real solutions are pushed into the distance.

There are other remedies for low self-esteem. You could, for example, accomplish things you are proud of. If you're not inherently pleased with who you are or what you've done, then there's always luxury to tell you what you want to hear. That helps explain why drug dealers, mafiosos and scam artists are notorious consumers of luxury. The more reprehensible your industry is, the more you need the shamanic potion to try to feel right.

But the rest of us should be content with function. If you do what you're proud of then you don't need the false reassurance of your value. You don't need the better class of wine—or even any wine at all! You need to find the things that work, that most efficiently get the job done, so you can get on with your own job of doing what's important.

—G .C.


©2009, Glenn Campbell.
See my other philosophy newsletters at www.KilroyCafe.com.
Released from Bar Harbor, Maine.
You can distribute this newsletter on your own blog or website under the conditions given at the main entry for it.
You are welcome to comment on this newsletter below.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Glenn's Photo Tips

Here are my tips for taking good photos, as expressed succinctly on my Twitter feed:

#1: CROP. Cut out extraneous data along edges of photo, either in-camera or in post-production.

#2: SEPARATION OF ELEMENTS. Each person or other subject should be distinct from its surroundings. Move to make that happen!

#3: SINGLE FOCUS POINT. Each photo should have only ONE center of attention, no more. If two things are competing, cut one out.

#4: COMPRESSION. Select a viewpoint that compresses the scene into a tight area. E.g. A whole mile-long train seen from the front.

#5: ILLUSION OF DEPTH. Always put something in the foreground and something in the background.

#6: HUMANIZATION. Every photo needs a human or human-like character to give the scene perspective.

#7: HIGH CONTRAST. Search for bright colors and high contrast between colors. Avoid dull grays.

#8: IRONY. Seek the outrageous and that which is unexpected for the situation.

#9: FIND HIDDEN MESSAGES. Look for messages in the juxtaposition of objects. Change your viewpoint to bring these items together.

#10: TAKE A LOT OF FRAMES. Shoot first, ask questions later. In the digital age, it's all free, so why not?

#11: REMOVE DISTRACTIONS. Frame or crop to exclude distracting objects, or Photoshop them out.

#12: KEEP SUN BEHIND YOU. Whenever possible, stand with the sun behind you for best light.

#13: ILLUSION OF MOTION. Every photo should be "going someplace" with its main character engaged in an action.

Most of these elements are present in the photo above (from Rome, see larger version). The girl in pink is the reference point. There's depth. There's motion. Most of the people in the photo are nicely separated. The "irony" element is that this place looks surreal, yet it is real.

Also see my Guide to Photo Cropping.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Song #12: "Can't Stop Thinkin'"

Here is my first love song! (albeit a bit obsessive) Intended for a male singer but might also work for a female. (I imagine Ringo Starr singing it. Shouldn't be a polished singer but someone seemingly clueless.) Here is the tune (.mp3), the sheet music (.pdf) and a video of me singing the song. (The song obviously exceeds my own ability to sing.) It was written on a road trip to Alaska.


Can't Stop Thinkin'

Oh, I can't stop thinkin' in my mind.
I got a melody playin' overtime.
I think my sanity's crossin' the borderline,
because I can't stop thinkin' all of the time.

I try to stop the voice in my head.
He's anxious, angry, wants to be fed.
But every time I see you walk by,
My mind starts racin', it won't stop takin' me
Back to the scene of the crime.

Oh I can't stop talkin' to myself
About the damage you're doin' to my health.
I saw you walkin' on water like God himself,
But now you're drivin' me crazy, straight into Hell.

Can't eat, can't sleep, I'm wastin' away.
I stare at walls and mumble all day.
But every time I see you walk in,
My mind starts racin', it won't stop takin' me
Back to the pickle I'm in.

Take my red pill, blue pill every day.
I'm a model patient in every way.
I'm making progress with my therapist
Who wants to help me mend,
But soon as the doctors have walked away,
I just start thinkin' again.

Oh I can't stop thinkin' in my head.
Can only stare at the ceilin' above my bed.
I think you're tryin' to kill me. You want me dead,
Because I can't stop thinkin' thoughts in my head.

I hear you, smell you up in my nose.
I feel you, taste you down in my toes,
'Cause every time you give me a kiss,
My mind starts racin', it won't stop takin'
Me back to perpetual bliss.

Oh I can't stop thinkin' what to do,
'Cause my reality's shaken, through and through,
And every little bitty neuron is black and blue,
Because I can't stop thinkin',
Can't stop thinkin',
Can't stop thinkin',
Thinkin' of you.

Lyrics and tune copyright © 2009, Glenn Campbell, PO Box 30303, Las Vegas, NV 89173.
Released from Las Vegas.
Here is my complete song archive.
My songs and screen stories are indexed at LoveStrangely.com

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Kilroy Café #51: "In Defense of Stereotypes"

Here is the latest Kilroy Café philosophy essay. You can click on the image above for a larger version or print it out on a single page via the pdf file. The full text is also below. Also see other Kilroy Café newsletters and the KilroyCafe Twitter Feed.


In Defense of Stereotypes

By GLENN CAMPBELL

It has become fashionable to say there is no difference between men and women, gays and straights, or between one race or culture and another. If you portray women as homemakers or gay men as walking around with a limp wrist and swish, you are supposedly engaged in bigotry and are perpetuating destructive stereotypes.

In an earlier era, people were imprisoned by those stereotypes. A woman would become a homemaker whether she wanted to or not because so many other roles were reserved for men and closed to her. Today, at least in North America and Europe, most of the barriers have fallen. Women can join the military and fight in combat. Men can become flight attendants and nursery school teachers.

And still the stereotypes persist. Males shoot guns, drink beer and watch football. Women primp and preen. Gay men flip their wrists and say how APPALLED they are at someone else's fashion sense. Nature designed these groups differently, so statistically they are going to behave differently.

If you try to point out these differences you are considered a bigot. According to current thinking, if someone from a certain genetic strain behaves in a manner typical of that group, it is only because SOCIETY MADE THEM DO IT, not because of any inborn inclination.

If women primp and preen and take an unusual interest in the aesthetics of their environment, it's only because the male-dominated culture expects it of them. If men treat women as sex objects and are drawn to mindless porn, it must be because the media already portrays women as sex objects and men learn from this what their role should be.

Rubbish! Stereotypes do not come out of thin air. There is almost always some truth to them. While it is unfair for an individual to be blocked by a stereotype from what he wants to do, it is equally destructive to say such patterns of behavior don't exist. By denying the behavior, you may be denying yourself an important tool for dealing with it in yourself and the people around you.

Human behavior is patterned by our genes. We may have "free will" but only within a framework that nature has designed for us. If you want to understand human behavior in the present, it's helpful to look at our genetic past, at what might have been critical to our survival in the hunter-gatherer days when our genes were formed.

If you love sweet and salty food today, it's because your genes set you up for it. If you can acknowledge this pre-programmed impulse, then your "free will" can adjust for it. If you refuse to acknowledge the role of your genes, then taste is your only guide, and you're going to turn into a little piggy.

Likewise, when dealing with others, you would be foolish not to acknowledge the patterns of behavior that are right in front of you. Saying that a male is "testosterone-driven" when engaged in certain risk-taking behaviors can be a pretty good shorthand for understanding his behavior and dealing with it. Whether testosterone itself is the culprit may be debatable, but you have to acknowledge that males are jumping off cliffs at an extraordinary rates compared to females. To deal with groups of males effectively, you have to grasp these typical patterns.

All humans are coping with powerful drives within themselves, and you can't simply talk them out of the resulting behavior. To a large extent you have to simply accept the behavior as it is, and stereotypes are one tool for doing so. Males behave in a certain way, and so do females. A stereotype, refined by experience, may be a good starting point when you first meet someone. After that your actual experience with them takes over, and eventually the stereotype can be set aside.

Since we are dealing with a lot more people in our lifetime than we will ever know intimately, we have to have slots to slip them into. After talking with someone for two minutes, you can usually say, "Okay, I am familiar with this personality type and how to deal with them." There is nothing wrong with that, even if it leads to mistakes sometimes. Since you often don't have more than two minutes for assessment, making these judgments is an essential social skill.

There is also nothing wrong with seeing that someone is labeled "female" on the internet and approaching them differently than you would a male. Genes aside, being male or female implies a certain kind of life experience. It's only prudent to approach each gender with your stereotypes activated, just in case they might be true.

Even when all the practical barriers have fallen, you will still have people behaving in the manner "typical" of their group because that's what they choose to do. It's what feels good to them. To force them into cultural sameness is as bigoted as the original stereotypes once were.

Just because women can go to war doesn't mean most of them have any desire to. Sometimes, homemaker or fashion maven just works better.

—G .C.


©2009, Glenn Campbell, PO Box 30303, Las Vegas, NV 89173. See my other philosophy newsletters at www.KilroyCafe.com.
Released from Boston.
You can distribute this newsletter on your own blog or website under the conditions given at the main entry for it.
You are welcome to comment on this newsletter below.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Kilroy Café #7: "Preening and Nesting Behavior of the Human Female: A Study"

Here is a republished Kilroy Café philosophy essay, originally released 6/7/08. You can click on the image above for a larger version or print it out on a single page via the pdf file. The full text is also below. Also see other Kilroy Café newsletters and the KilroyCafe Twitter Feed.


Preening and Nesting Behavior of the Human Female: A Study

By GLENN CAMPBELL

My many years of research into the behavior of the human female have yielded more questions than answers. The chief difficulty with studying this species in the wild is that the observer tends to change that which is observed.

The researcher can't set up his cameras and recording equipment and expect the female to act naturally. As soon as observation begins, the female instantly becomes aware of the researcher's presence and withdraws to the bathroom, where she remains for hours.

When she finally emerges, there is artificial pigmentation all over her face, while an overpowering floral scent permeates the air within a 20-meter radius. The clothing is frilly and impractical, and the subject has gained 4 to 12 centimeters in height through the attachment of bizarre pointed extensions to the feet. Fingernails may be similarly extended and decorated, and useless baubles and charms are attached to various parts of the body. The hair on the head has been colored and coifed, while extraneous hair on other parts of the body has been plucked or shaved.

Only when the female opens her mouth and speaks is it clear that this is the same individual who went into the bathroom.

Evidently, the female has difficulty "being herself." There always has to be a layer of decoration between her and the outside world. This can be a veneer of makeup or a whole houseful of vanity objects. The risk to the female is that adornment takes over her life and nothing is accomplished all day except primping and interior decoration.

Males just want to get a job done, while females (and some gay males) have a dangerous aesthetic sense which says things have to be done in a certain ceremonial way. Females are often called more "sensitive" than males, but an alternate term is "superficial," as they can easily become obsessed with outward image rather than delving below the surface for substance.

Given the resources to do so, a female will build a nest. This appears to be a deeply ingrained behavior that may have evolved to meet the needs of offspring when the world was more dangerous and resources were scarce. A nest is a comfortable, protected place in a harsh environment. Nest building, however, can get out of hand in the modern world. If excess resources are available, the typical female will invest them all in her creation, regardless of true need, until the nest becomes an obscene and overwrought display of selfindulgence and waste.

In the female universe, one cannot simply sleep on a mattress on the floor of an adequately heated cubicle, no matter how comfortable it may be. One has to sleep on a raised bed with an oak frame, a feather comforter and color-coordinated sheets, surrounded by furniture and art objects that radiate good taste. The room should have a light scent of potpourri, and the windows should look out upon some idyllic scene of nature. The female fails to recognize that when she is sleeping, she isn't going to notice any of this, but the symbolism and psychosocial imagery of the nest seem to be more important than actual function.

Feminine nest-building is directed toward an unfulfillable ideal epitomized by the pornographic imagery of Martha Stewart. In magazines and TV shows, the Stewart communications empire shows us idealized, softly-lit images of what the gentle life should look like—not unlike the dreamy images of centerfolds in Playboy. Females usually fall for this nonsense just as surely as males drool over Miss November.

According to the Stewart ideal, objects brought into the home should not be hard and functional but soft and rustic. They should seem to come from a theoretical "Middle Earth" era when most things were made by hand and life supposedly had more substance and quality. The nest is lined with cotton and lace, never nylon or polyester. The idealized pornographic home is always pristine but never quite finished, as there are always new projects to start as soon the current one is done.

By genetic predisposition enhanced by commercial marketing, a female's nest tends to absorb whatever time and money are available to her. If she has a million dollars, she'll soon have a million dollar nest. Necessity and function are usually the least considered issues in nest implementation and the female will respect them only when poverty, divorce or other outside factors force her to.

The tragic part of feminine nesting is that the nest, once built, has to be defended. After years of accumulated vanity, the home contains so many complex and fragile investments that the female can hardly move. The "nest" becomes more like a "web" with a ill-tempered spider in the center. "Don't touch that!" the female snaps if you try to change anything. Once the web has been spun and attached to the surrounding terrain, it becomes nearly immovable. The female can thus become trapped in her own elaborate creation, which can inhibit all forms of personal growth.

The female, like the male, has only a limited time on Earth. If precious years are wasted in creating the perfect home, there will be little time left for actual living.

—G .C.



ALSO SEE: Male Sports Addiction: A Clinical Profile (Kilroy Cafe #10)

©2008, Glenn Campbell, PO Box 30303, Las Vegas, NV 89173. See my other philosophy newsletters at www.KilroyCafe.com.
Originally published from Las Vegas, 6/7/08.
Re-released from San Diego.
You can distribute this newsletter on your own blog or website under the conditions given at the main entry for it.
You are welcome to comment on this newsletter below.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Kilroy Café #50: "The Tragedy of Success"

Here is the latest Kilroy Café philosophy essay. You can click on the image above for a larger version or print it out on a single page via the pdf file. The full text is also below. Also see other Kilroy Café newsletters and the KilroyCafe Twitter Feed.


The Tragedy of Success

By GLENN CAMPBELL

No one wants to experience poverty or misfortune, but wealth and comfort can be just as debilitating. Success, in any field, isn't all it is cracked up to be. It can open doors, but it can also become a drag on personal growth and set you up for catastrophe later.

The requirements of life are relatively simple and cheap. If you have just enough resources to meet those needs, you are going to use them efficiently. Once you have excess resources, however, you tend to become less efficient and more arrogant about how you use them. You take on more burdens and obligations to absorb that extra time or money, and soon you feel just as trapped and "poor" as you did before.

There is nothing wrong with having money in the bank, but it is human nature that when people have extra resources (or the illusion thereof) they are likely to use them. Instead of a simple apartment, they acquire a country estate with maintenance costs many times greater. Obligations mushroom, so that no matter how much money one has, it is never enough.

When your obligations are greater, you are much more vulnerable to unexpected change. You have to generate a huge income now to support it all, and if you can't, the whole house of cards will collapse.

At the root of most personal catastrophes is the euphoria of previous success. Once you win one great prize, you think the sky's the limit, and you start wasting resources and taking on obligations as though success was your right. Now, you can't simply fall back to the simple state you were in before. If your destiny shifts just a little, all your obligations will come due and there's likely to be a disastrous crash.

When you are struggling for success—for love, money, fame, power—you think this goal is all you need. When you get there, though, you face a whole new set of challenges. Will you fall victim to all the seductions and addictions of success, or will you know when to stop? If you don't stop, success will kill you just as surely as poverty will.

Success tends to stop personal growth in its tracks, because once you find something that works, you usually stick with it. Because you don't want to give up a good thing, it can be extraordinarily difficult to change gears. Success builds a protective cocoon around you that restricts your openness to the world and inhibits your motivation. Barring a calamity, you tend to follow the same easy patterns for the rest of your life.

If you find success as an actor, that's what you'll always be, and if you find too much success in one role, you will be forever "typecast" there, because that's what the world expects of you.

Many a rising young star has been brought down to earth by taking the logical next step in a perceived progression of successes. They accept the irresistible promotion offered them, and in the process they move from free and happy to burdened and trapped. Every "success" is potentially like that: a prison rather than a panacea.

It would be ideal if you could experience all the benefits of success while holding your needs and obligations at their pre-success levels. Success without obligation is the finest reward, but this is a scarce commodity. The world will rarely hand it to you, so you have to create it for yourself.

The first step is to redefine "success". We are used to thinking of it in external terms: as millions of dollars, a high-ranking position, a plaque on the wall or fame among people you have never met. These are all things you can point to publically to prove you are successful, but they aren't what matters within your own world.

Internally, the most valuable fruit of any success is freedom. The greatest prize is to be able to do what you believe is most important at the moment without being held down by past obligations. Money, and to some extent fame and recognition, can sometimes help you achieve this freedom, but it isn't necessarily true that 10 times the money will give you 10 times the freedom. You also have to control your expenses and obligations.

Any "success" that also results in greater risk and obligation may not truly be a contribution to freedom. Think of the typecast actor or the struggling business owner. Many of the stereotypical roles seen as "successful" are little more than gilded prisons you would never want to inhabit yourself.

When you are poor, you have to carefully manage you pennies to make sure outflow matches inflow. Success requires the same sort of careful management. Just because you can do something within your expanded resources doesn't mean you should do it. You still have to monitor the burdens and obligations of every action, and refuse those "successes" that dig you in too deep.

Freedom is the real coin of the realm. Rich or poor, your lifelong allocation of time is still the same, so you have to make the most of every minute.

—G .C.


©2009, Glenn Campbell, PO Box 30303, Las Vegas, NV 89173. See my other philosophy newsletters at www.KilroyCafe.com.
Released from Ft. Collins, Colorado.
You can distribute this newsletter on your own blog or website under the conditions given at the main entry for it.
You are welcome to comment on this newsletter below.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Kilroy Café #49: "The Handicap Principle"

Here is the latest Kilroy Café philosophy essay. You can click on the image above for a larger version or print it out on a single page via the pdf file. The full text is also below. Also see other Kilroy Café newsletters and the KilroyCafe Twitter Feed.


The Handicap Principle

By GLENN CAMPBELL

In the 1970s, biologist Amotz Zahavi developed a theory to explain some of the most perplexing behavior and physical displays in the animal world. He called it the "handicap principle".

Loosely defined, the handicap principle says that animals will deliberately waste resources in an ostentatious way as a signal to others of their overall fitness. They will accept a theatrical "handicap" if it furthers their evolutionary aims.

The simplest example is the ridiculous plumage of the peacock. You see them strutting around the farm or zoo displaying a huge fan of feathers. The display offers no direct survival advantage. In fact, it is a significant burden, since carrying it around makes the bird more vulnerable to predators. Why, then, did it evolve this way?

Obviously, the display is a turn-on to the female peafowl, who has ev0lved a corresponding preference for big feathers. To put it in our terms, she figures, "Wow, if he's got this fancy, expensive car, he must really be strong and powerful!" Like females everywhere, she tends to fall for the display and overlook underlying fitness. Only after she marries him does she find out he's just a jerk with big feathers.

Males are by no means immune to such deception. Take human female breasts, which are unique in nature. They are far larger than they need to be to give milk and positively humongous compared to other mammals. For pure survival, they are significant handicap, flopping around and getting in the way as they do. They exist mainly as a signal to the male of overall fitness.

And the male falls for it! In his animal brain, he thinks, "Wow, if she's got knockers like that, she must be really fertile!" It's a somewhat honest signal because breasts consist of fat and to produce them you have to have energy to spare. But in another sense, it's just advertizing, which is vulnerable to all kinds of manipulation and deception.

Is breast size related to ones actual suitability as a mate? Most of us would say no—intellectually at least—yet males and females still play the game: women dressing up their breasts for display and men going gaga over them as though they meant something.

Zahavi would understand.

Once you grasp the handicap principle, you see it everywhere, especially in the social world. When most people gain extra resources, what's the first thing they do? They usually put those resources on display with some kind of pompous purchase that serves no purpose other than crowing to the world, "I have extra resources."

The flashy car, the high fashion, the palatial home—all of these supposed "luxury" items are actually a burden to use. For example, no luxury car is as reliable or easy to maintain as an economy model. The only reason for owning such absurdities is displaying them, to try to prove to others your underlying quality.

But there is also real quality, which is separate from any signal. As a species, it may be our destiny to put on empty displays, but as individuals, we need to recognize these displays as fundamentally phony and distracting.

Animals use signals because they save energy. If you're a buck deer and you see that some other guy's antlers are bigger than yours, you're not going to mess with him because it's a good bet he's more powerful. Likewise, if you're driving down the highway late at night and need a place to sleep, you might just stop at the motel with the biggest and prettiest sign. You guess that with all they have invested in the sign, it's probably not a fleabag.

These open signals can tell you something, but they aren't very subtle and they're not usually telling you the whole story. As soon as you have the means, you should be probing below the surface, trying to differentiate actual quality from advertized quality.

Actual quality is what really works over time. The best way to judge it, if you can afford to do so, is some sort of operational testing. The best way to choose a mate is not breast size or car size but to actually interact with the product for a while, under conditions closely resembling its intended long-term use.

Our society is based largely on signals—on advertizing, hyperbole and pompous displays that have little to do with underlying quality. That's just how society works.

But that doesn't have to be the way you work. The only lasting satisfaction in life comes from quality—both detecting it in others and producing it yourself. The strutting peacocks producing fancy signals will always get more notice, but they rarely feel successful. They're fakers and deep down they know it.

In the long run, it's better to be real.

—G .C.


©2009, Glenn Campbell, PO Box 30303, Las Vegas, NV 89173. See my other philosophy newsletters at www.KilroyCafe.com.
Released from Lumberton, North Carolina.
You can distribute this newsletter on your own blog or website under the conditions given at the main entry for it.
You can Retweet this article on Twitter™ (@KilroyCafe)
You are welcome to comment on this newsletter below.

Monday, June 8, 2009

Kilroy Café #48: "Escape from Narcissism"

Here is the latest Kilroy Café philosophy essay. You can click on the image above for a larger version or print it out on a single page via the pdf file. The full text is also below. Also see other Kilroy Café newsletters and the KilroyCafe Twitter Feed.


Escape from Narcissism

By GLENN CAMPBELL

We all started out as narcissists. When we first became conscious, the universe seemed to revolve around us. There were parents hovering over us attending to our every need. When we cried out, the world promptly responded, as though our own feelings were the only ones that mattered.

Unfortunately, the outside world doesn't work that way. In reality, we are only one human of billions, and for the most part no one gives a damn about us and our needs. We gain the attention of others only by noticing their needs and providing some sort of service to them.

Intellectually, we can accept that we are not the center of all creation, but emotionally it is very hard. It's a long, painful journey from egocentrism to globalism. We have to unlearn the self-serving habits of our youth and learn to see the big picture.

Narcissism isn't "self-love" as much as self-centeredness. There are some very unhappy narcissists who do not love themselves, but they can't step out of themselves long enough to see what others need. Therefore, they miss cues from others, step on people's toes and don't get what they need from them. A narcissist is a bull in a china shop, because he doesn't "get" how the world really works.

The narcissist expects others to serve his needs just because he has them. "I'm hungry, so feed me." He assumes that if something is important to him, it must also be important to others. He thinks others exist only to give him what he wants. After all, that's how things worked in his childhood.

When this theory fails to get results, he tries leverage. He throws a tantrum or uses some other threat, bribe or seduction to try to coerce compliance. If being "needy" doesn't get him what he wants, he tries power instead.

While power and neediness may both work on occasion, they aren't nearly as effective as a third method: understanding the inner needs of the person you are dealing with and giving them what they need in exchange for what you need.

This is the conceptual leap the narcissist is unable to make: Others have needs! When other people hurt us, it isn't because they want to but because our needs conflict with theirs. Finding a middle ground requires subtlety and grace that the narcissist doesn't have. He is so blinded by his own needs that he can't truly grasp someone else's.

The narcissist makes a good swindler, but he is also easily swindled because he can't grasp the hidden motivations of the people he is interacting with. He automatically assumes that his goals are the same as everyone else's, and he is shocked and surprised when that's not the case.

The self-centeredness extends not just to people but to systems. To truly understand, say, an electrical system, we have to step outside ourselves and see what the system wants. What are its own independent rules? Although we may have goals of our own (Become an electrician and make a lot of money.) the electrons don't care. To become a good electrician (and one who doesn't kill himself), you have to understand the inner needs of the electron.

Take another system: photography. Most people's vacation photos are terrible — because of narcissism. Their snapshots may be meaningful to them but they are dull and bland to the rest of us. This is true even in a supposedly interesting location like Times Square or the Grand Canyon.

The photos are boring because the photographer can't see what actually appears in the viewfinder and evaluate it on its own merits. He thinks, "This is a very special moment, so if I take a picture of it, the photo will be special, too." He fails to see that camera is an independent system that has to be understood on its own merits.

You can tell a person's relative level of narcissism by watching them compose photos at a tourist attraction— or indeed by watching him do anything anywhere. Does he take the time to understand the system or person he is dealing with, or does he plough ahead blindly, expecting the world to cater to his needs?

We are all narcissists to some degree. We are all trapped in one body that is the center of our perception. We mature, however, by learning there is bigger world out there. Yes, we have needs, but often they are best served by setting them aside and understanding the needs of others. With that knowledge, we might find the key that unlocks the others and eventually gives us what we want.

You may be hungry right now, but it's not the end of the world. If you can set aside the sensation for a while and learn about someone else's hunger, you might find a way to solve both of your problems at minimal expense.

—G .C.


©2009, Glenn Campbell, PO Box 30303, Las Vegas, NV 89173. See my other philosophy newsletters at www.KilroyCafe.com.
Released from El Paso, Texas.
You can distribute this newsletter on your own blog or website under the conditions given at the main entry for it.
You can Retweet this article on Twitter™.
You are welcome to comment on this newsletter below.