Sick. I just figured out how to create hover-over text. This will be useful if I ever post again.
[1]
What up boyyyz
Monday, March 23, 2015
Discovering is fun.
My name is Marty. [1]
Sick. I just figured out how to create hover-over text. This will be useful if I ever post again.
[1]
Sick. I just figured out how to create hover-over text. This will be useful if I ever post again.
[1]
Sunday, February 1, 2015
(Jail [Cell) Phone]
Top Note: This was originally going to include more than just people and their phones, but the phone thing got pretty long. Maybe I'll write about the other stuff later.
I'm a big fan of people watching, and something I've noticed, more with kids and young adults, is that you can tell a lot about a person by how they act with their phone. Specifically smart phones. Normal phones are basically useless.
People are so connected to smart phones that they have practically become an extension of their inner self. They spend their life on their phone. They communicate with their phone. They are entertained by their phone. Their phone comforts them at night and greets them in the morning. Their phone has become such a part of their life that they feel it is a part of themselves.
Something I've noticed, because of that fact, is that people who are possessive of their phones are usually very conservative in their interactions with others. They are the type of person with many secrets. With trust issues. The type of person who would be afraid of telling an embarrassing secret to their spouse of sixty years.
Their phone may not actually have any embarrassing facts on it at all. It could be a stock phone that they just got two hours ago, and they will still be hesitant to let someone even touch the phone.
And the reverse is also usually true. If people give up their phone freely, they are usually more open about themselves. They aren't afraid of telling embarrassing stories. They generally don't have many secrets. More open to trusting people they meet. They are usually more outgoing and more extroverted.
This isn't a binary scale, either. It's not necessarily one or the other. It's a scale. People in the middle will give up their phone on occasion, but might be a bit hesitant. They do have secrets, but will only tell them to a select elite of their choosing, like family, friends, or loved ones. They will trust most people, but might be wary of some because of certain past experiences.
But wait, there's more!
Almost everyone has a lock on their phone (although I'm not quite sure why). And there is a scale of personality types that goes along with those locks.
On one side of the scale, you have the people who will just tell you their password when you take their phone. Why they even have a lock on their phone, I'm not sure, but they do. My guess is they like the feeling of being in control of the information that exists on their phone, but don't really care if other people see that information. It's kinda just a grasp for power.
I've heard people say they put a lock on their phone in case it gets stolen. That's retarded. No thief is going to look at a phone and think, "Aww crap! It's locked! I guess I better give the phone back."
In the middle of the scale you have the people who won't tell you what their password is, but they will type it in for you. It's not as much of a power grasp, but more of a filter. They only want certain people to see what's on their phone, and only if they know what the other person is doing. They don't do it necessarily to be in control of the other person, but because they have some trust issues and aren't really comfortable with people looking through their stuff.
And at the other end of the scale are the people who will not give up their password as if it's a national secret. They won't tell you what it is, and they won't put the password in for you. The explanation for this is exactly the same as for why people are super possessive of their phones. They have many personal things they are afraid to tell people and they are extremely hesitant to trust someone.
Bottom Note: That indented paragraph took waaaaaaay more work than it should've.
I'm a big fan of people watching, and something I've noticed, more with kids and young adults, is that you can tell a lot about a person by how they act with their phone. Specifically smart phones. Normal phones are basically useless.
People are so connected to smart phones that they have practically become an extension of their inner self. They spend their life on their phone. They communicate with their phone. They are entertained by their phone. Their phone comforts them at night and greets them in the morning. Their phone has become such a part of their life that they feel it is a part of themselves.
Something I've noticed, because of that fact, is that people who are possessive of their phones are usually very conservative in their interactions with others. They are the type of person with many secrets. With trust issues. The type of person who would be afraid of telling an embarrassing secret to their spouse of sixty years.
Their phone may not actually have any embarrassing facts on it at all. It could be a stock phone that they just got two hours ago, and they will still be hesitant to let someone even touch the phone.
And the reverse is also usually true. If people give up their phone freely, they are usually more open about themselves. They aren't afraid of telling embarrassing stories. They generally don't have many secrets. More open to trusting people they meet. They are usually more outgoing and more extroverted.
This isn't a binary scale, either. It's not necessarily one or the other. It's a scale. People in the middle will give up their phone on occasion, but might be a bit hesitant. They do have secrets, but will only tell them to a select elite of their choosing, like family, friends, or loved ones. They will trust most people, but might be wary of some because of certain past experiences.
But wait, there's more!
Almost everyone has a lock on their phone (although I'm not quite sure why). And there is a scale of personality types that goes along with those locks.
On one side of the scale, you have the people who will just tell you their password when you take their phone. Why they even have a lock on their phone, I'm not sure, but they do. My guess is they like the feeling of being in control of the information that exists on their phone, but don't really care if other people see that information. It's kinda just a grasp for power.
I've heard people say they put a lock on their phone in case it gets stolen. That's retarded. No thief is going to look at a phone and think, "Aww crap! It's locked! I guess I better give the phone back."
In the middle of the scale you have the people who won't tell you what their password is, but they will type it in for you. It's not as much of a power grasp, but more of a filter. They only want certain people to see what's on their phone, and only if they know what the other person is doing. They don't do it necessarily to be in control of the other person, but because they have some trust issues and aren't really comfortable with people looking through their stuff.
And at the other end of the scale are the people who will not give up their password as if it's a national secret. They won't tell you what it is, and they won't put the password in for you. The explanation for this is exactly the same as for why people are super possessive of their phones. They have many personal things they are afraid to tell people and they are extremely hesitant to trust someone.
Bottom Note: That indented paragraph took waaaaaaay more work than it should've.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
(Bipartisan System)atic Theology
The way I see it, all religions have two key parts: explaining the origin of the universe, and explaining how humans should treat each other. Everything else is pretty much just filler. Both of these things are great, and should be explored by the human race.
My problem with religion is, at least with the explanation of the origin of the universe, its not updated as time goes on. Science will always reveal things that someone 5,000 years ago could not have figured out, and those discoveries will conflict with various religions. Since religions wont update to accommodate those new discoveries, they are only left the option of denying those discoveries to be true.
This denial leads to generation after generation of people who are ignorant and paranoid. They are taught that the scientists are morons who couldn't possibly understand the truth of the universe, and their theories on the origins of the universe (TOU from now on) should be completely disregarded.
This is obviously a problem, but it gets much worse than that. When taught that something someone tells you is wrong, it's hard to believe anything they tell you. When told that a scientist's TOU is wrong, people tend to not believe any scientific discovery that they are told, even if it is a completely different category of science.
A great example of this is global warming. Christians (I only use Christians because of experience) are taught that the Big Bang theory (I feel like that may not be capitalized, but I don't care) and the theory of evolution are completely wrong, both of which are widely accepted by scientists around the world. Because of this, Christians are skeptical of other scientific discoveries, such as global warming.
The three of those discoveries aren't even associated with the same field of science. The big bang theory (There, its not capitalized. Happy?) falls under physics. Evolution falls under biology. Global warming falls under climatology. Very, very different fields. And yet, because the physicist and the biologist are wrong, of course the climatologist is wrong.
For a religion to truly be eternal, it needs to update itself with the things people discover to be true. Otherwise, future generations are going to be screwed, as they have been in the past.
Now for the second part of religion, the explanation of proper human interaction, I don't necessarily believe it needs to be updated over time. Do I think it would be better if it were? Of course. But if the two key parts of a religion keep changing over time, is it truly the same religion?
How humans should interact with each other, in theory, should not have to change over time. If you get the basics right, you should be good. The only thing that really changes is people become more tolerant with passing time. People learn to look outside of themselves and see the viewpoints of others. But if you make your religion very tolerant to begin with, you'll be fine.
Instead of telling people what not to do, just tell them what they should do. Tell them to love each other, or to help one another, or to be generous. Keep it simple, and it will be very hard for people to dispute your ideology.
Bottom note: It's been almost a year, and I still don't have a better word for blog. This is hard.
My problem with religion is, at least with the explanation of the origin of the universe, its not updated as time goes on. Science will always reveal things that someone 5,000 years ago could not have figured out, and those discoveries will conflict with various religions. Since religions wont update to accommodate those new discoveries, they are only left the option of denying those discoveries to be true.
This denial leads to generation after generation of people who are ignorant and paranoid. They are taught that the scientists are morons who couldn't possibly understand the truth of the universe, and their theories on the origins of the universe (TOU from now on) should be completely disregarded.
This is obviously a problem, but it gets much worse than that. When taught that something someone tells you is wrong, it's hard to believe anything they tell you. When told that a scientist's TOU is wrong, people tend to not believe any scientific discovery that they are told, even if it is a completely different category of science.
A great example of this is global warming. Christians (I only use Christians because of experience) are taught that the Big Bang theory (I feel like that may not be capitalized, but I don't care) and the theory of evolution are completely wrong, both of which are widely accepted by scientists around the world. Because of this, Christians are skeptical of other scientific discoveries, such as global warming.
The three of those discoveries aren't even associated with the same field of science. The big bang theory (There, its not capitalized. Happy?) falls under physics. Evolution falls under biology. Global warming falls under climatology. Very, very different fields. And yet, because the physicist and the biologist are wrong, of course the climatologist is wrong.
For a religion to truly be eternal, it needs to update itself with the things people discover to be true. Otherwise, future generations are going to be screwed, as they have been in the past.
Now for the second part of religion, the explanation of proper human interaction, I don't necessarily believe it needs to be updated over time. Do I think it would be better if it were? Of course. But if the two key parts of a religion keep changing over time, is it truly the same religion?
How humans should interact with each other, in theory, should not have to change over time. If you get the basics right, you should be good. The only thing that really changes is people become more tolerant with passing time. People learn to look outside of themselves and see the viewpoints of others. But if you make your religion very tolerant to begin with, you'll be fine.
Instead of telling people what not to do, just tell them what they should do. Tell them to love each other, or to help one another, or to be generous. Keep it simple, and it will be very hard for people to dispute your ideology.
Bottom note: It's been almost a year, and I still don't have a better word for blog. This is hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)