Ramblerambleramble

The future of Psychology: Neuroscience, Psychoanalysis, and how things will soon come full circle.

2006-01-05T04:59:00.000-05:00

Possibly the most controversial questions of all time are those posed by the (in)famous mind/body problem. This problem stems from our increasing library of knowledge regarding the mechanics of the body and its organs, including (most significantly) the brain, and how this knowledge seems to run contrary to our deepest intuitions about the nature of our own mind and conscious experience. We tend to see things in terms of raw semantics: a rose is red -- it just is. But in the meticulously defined and specific realm of science, such terms as "redness" become essentially meaningless. There are many alternative ways to describe phenomena, but none of them seem to cut to the core of our deepest personal experience. Red is simply red, and no matter how the pathways of the brain are mapped out and no matter how well this is documented. Any and all of such explanations will simply never get to the point: red is red.
As simple as this seems, this problem cuts deep into the core of our existence. We cannot bridge that gap between the objective and the purely subjective, and no one is really certain quite how we will.
This tangental explanation of the mind-body problem is merely a preface to the analogous subjects of this piece. Much more exhaustive and inclusive writings on this subject can be found elsewhere. The point that I am trying to get to is this: the solution to this problem, and the future of the Psychological field, must revolve around the convergence of the most disparate disciplines of (new-century) neuroscience and (century-old) psychoanalysis. The most obvious way to demonstrate this is to redefine these two subjects within the context of top-down vs. bottom-up methodologies. The reconciliation of the living mind with the mechanical brain lies at the crossroads between the psychological analysis of the mind and the neurological profile of the brain. Intertwining the two will tie the knot that allows for this thought-to-be uncrossable void to be bridged once and for all. Rather than the senseless jumble of perspectives that run rampant in the modern field, I propose that psychoanalysis had the right idea to begin with. There is no better perspective existing with which to fully and totally examine the depths of the human mind from the perspective of the human mind. The psychoanalytical method, at its core, begins with the mind and continually breaks down each individual aspect into its component parts and further causes. In this way, applied correctly, a complete "semantic profile" of the mind can theoretically be obtained. This is the red to our rose. It is for this reason -- that the psychoanalytical method begins with the entirety of the mind and proceeds to process it out into components -- that I ascribe to it the title of "top-down".
Of course, this is merely half of our picture. The other half is the pure, down-and-dirty, no-frills neurological approach to the mind. It is not imprudent to predict that within this century neuroscience will advance to the point where the whole of the mind can be mapped to precision. With such a map, we will, presumably, come to understand all the intricacies of thought, emotion, consciousness, and what it is to be human from the third-person context of the enlightened observer. However, thanks to that impenetrable boundary beween observer and observed, we will never with neurology alone be able to fully bridge that gap between the subjective and the objective. Unless, of course, we can find a point where the two converge.
My belief is that this convergence exists when the "meaningful" map of the mind provided by psychoanalysis is overlayed with the concrete map of the mind provided by neuroscience. Through the combination of these alone will we gain a true, comprehensive picture of consciousness, rather than a dry blueprint or simple flowery nonsense. Over time, the roughly-correlational map that will derive from these overlays will evolve into a complete and holistic portrait of the entirety of the human mind. It is then that Psychology will be complete -- after poetically tying its beginning and its conclusion into one coherent circle.

In genetic defense of gayness

2005-02-01T20:21:00.000-05:00

Some talk in Gov today got me thinking about homosexuality in all its controversial glory. Most evidence points to an unusually feminine (or masculine) physiology as the prime cause of homosexuality. This itself is caused primarily by prenatal factors. So, do we label homosexuality a disorder, as with other mental anomalies? Where is the line drawn between a disorderly mind and "normal" mind? Where is the line drawn between disorderly behavior and "normal" behavior? Homosexuality tends to be detrimental to reproductive success (for obvious reasons), so I can't forsee any sympathy from the genetically-minded crowd. Then again, the specific definition and classification of normal vs. abnormal is far more than I hoped to touch on in this post.

Homosexuality has been a sort of proverbial thorn in the side of evolution, especially Dawkins' brand. Sociobiologists have attempted to write homosexuality off by ascribing its existence to its benefits in situations of overpopulation. This view has been largely discredited. From every evolutionary perspective, homosexuality should have gone extinct long ago. This is especially true for the selfish gene theory, as it amounts essentially to sterility (= genetic death = no survival).

There's a pretty simple and obvious answer to that whole "problem", which is not really a problem at all. Homosexuality is not hereditary (duh). There is no "gay" gene, and if there were, there still wouldn't be for reasons already mentioned. So then all homosexuality must arise from environmental factors, be them prenatal or postnatal. This puts it much further out of the range of the gene than panderers of the above reasoning would like to understand. The closest to genetics that homosexuality could get, then, would be the protoeme of the womb when it occasionally spits out a destined flamer. It's obvious that a highly efficient womb system which screws up only about 7% of the time with a gay/sterile child probably won't be selected against, especially when there's no small alteration that would yield a surefire successful system. Thus, there's really no reason why homosexuality can't exist and no reason why its existence should be irreconcilable with evolution as we know it.
This whole concept doesn't seem to be as obvious in the scientific community as it probably should be.

Library

2005-01-31T15:59:00.000-05:00

Here's my retooled bookshelf, for anyone who wants to borrow. At the rate I'm managing to read these, I assure you the return date won't be until next forever.
Bold = on loan or in use. Links are to Amazon.com's description.

- The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
- Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century by Howard Bloom
- The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Richard Dawkins
- A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins
- The Birth of the Mind: How a Tiny Number of Genes Creates the Complexities of Human Thought by Gary Marcus
- The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
- The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene
- The Universe in a Nutshell by Steven Hawking

Proliferation of knowledge good.

Sexual selection and the feasibility of altruism

2005-01-23T22:34:00.000-05:00

I just came up with a fucking brilliant idea and I have no clue whatsoever why it hasn't been proposed before.

First, disambiguation. For those of you not familiar with Biology, prepare to be educated. The rest of you can skip ahead if you wish.

There are two primary forces in the game of evolution. You're all familiar, I'm sure, with natural selection. For consistency's sake, I'll quickly define it. In any given environment, an individual with traits (behavior included) more suited to life in that environment is more likely to survive and reproduce. A more accurate way of saying this is that for any given environment, the genes that give rise to traits most suited to their proliferation in that environment will be more likely to proliferate and, given enough time, dominate the population.
The other, often opposing primary force is sexual selection. This relies on the concept that individuals with more attractive/noticable/beneficial-to-partner traits will be selected for by the opposite sex and therefore more likely to breed. Again in genetic terms: genes producing more attractive/noticable/beneficial traits will be more likely to find their way into the next generation, and therefore, given time, will come to dominate the population.

These two often collide in interests, the simplest example of which can be seen in the case where the animal with the dullest coat will be less likely to be noticed by predators, while the animal with the flashiest will be more likely to be noticed by females. In this case, stabilizing selection takes place, where selection pressures are exerted on the population at both extremes, creating a trend towards moderation.

A controversy has raged in biology for decades over the issue of altruism. It makes no sense, from a genetic point of view, why true altruism would ever evolve (and nobody's saying that it has -- as far as I can see most acts of 'altruism' are committed with veiled or unconcsious expectation). By definition, an altruistic act is one that benefits another, with no benefit whatsoever (indeed, normally costs) to the self. It's clear how natural selection would overwhelmingly select against this kind of behavior, and so the existence of what appears to be altruism in nature today has perplexed all engaged in the study of behavior.

I ask: why have none of them considered sexual selection?
I'd imagine an altruistic mate would VASTLY benefit any individual, and so I would expect the tendency to prefer and discriminate for altruistic mates would spread through the population at alarming rates. As an effect of this, via sexual selection, altruistic individuals will be more likely to breed, and so altruist genes will become predominant.
However, not too predominant. We can't forego the everpresent hand of natural selection, which assures that any individual whose priorities are out of line will face the swift justice of genetic death. Between the two of them, a stabilization arises and both extremes -- excessive selfishness, and excessive altruism -- should be minimalized in favor of a certain trade-off. In fact, the most favorable tendency in this case would be the intelligent and careful discrimination between when to act altruistically and when to look out for number one. Could this be one of the primary factors fueling the rise of intelligence?
Intelligence-rearing or not, it stands that this is a remarkably sensible and simple way in which certain altruisms may have come to be just as easily as certain self-serving tendencies. In fact, it is in this way that altruism comes to be while still acting in a self-serving way -- not quite true altruism after all, but as close as is practical. Similarly, it offers insight into how selfishness and altruism could have evolved in tandem, going as far as to display how altruism and selfishness are truly two sides of the same coin. No doubt, your altruism is my selfishness, and vice-versa. In this way, altruism becomes a form of networked selfishness, in a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" kind of way. It's easy to see how, keeping strength in numbers in mind, this kind of behavior could have held an immense advantage. Is this the source of society?

Possibly.
The concept as a whole is full of loose ends, and I've got some serious pondering to do before declaring a new theory of behavior (har), but I think it's an interesting possibility. Also, my argument reeks of genetic determinism, which may or may not be the correct way of looking at things. We'll see...

Book review: The Selfish Gene

2005-01-19T17:17:00.000-05:00

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

First, to avoid confusion, I should point out that the title may mislead. The book doesn't deal with a gene for human selfishness, or even explicitly selfish behavior at all (on the contrary, much of its focus is on altruism). Rather, it refers to genes themselves. Selfishness is an anthropomorphized analog of the behavior of genes, or, less specifically, any replicating entity. The exact reason for the analogy is spelled out well enough in the book.

Essentially what the book does is begin with a single original self-replicating molecule and attempt to explain how the logical consequence of that molecule is life as we know it today. There are understandably necessary gaps left for the reader to fill in by the end, but I think the book definitely does no poor job of giving credence to this theory. It offers a 300 page exploration into how animal behavior is a statistical and consequential result of the replicator. Dawkins also takes the time to introduce some rather interesting concepts, such as the "meme" (a term you blogging folk can thank Dawkins for, by the way) and the extended phenotype (star of its own book as well).

Dawkins takes Darwinian natural selection and scales it down to the only level at which it really applies: that of the gene. It is a common misconception in popular science today that natural selection occurs at the group, or even at the individual level. It doesn't. The only truly distinct unit that is ever being selected for or against is the gene. By the same token, the gene itself is not interested in the survival of the species, nor even particularly interested in the survival of the individual. The only thing the gene is determined to preserve is itself, and it does so through successive generations of living shells (you and I).
Any sensibly-minded observer will point out that words such as interest or determination have no place in describing the actions of blind, motiveless genes, and they would be entirely correct. Dawkins goes to great pains to keep metaphor binded to reality and to thoroughly explain how, when he simplifies that a gene "wants" to do this or that, he simply means that it will have a natural tendency to do this or that.

In a nutshell, his theory goes something like this: in the beginning, there was the replicator. There need be only one, because after awhile, there will be two, and then four, and then a billion. Eventually enough replicators will have come to be that space or resources will run out. After that, the replicator that, say, dons a lipid coat will have a better chance of surviving than its neighbors. As replicators and their vehicles become more complicated, they will become more or less likely to continue replicating, and so complexity continues to increase ad absurdum. Voilà, us. The rest of the book is spent explaining certain things based on this view of life, and it does a convincing job of it.

If you're interested in this kind of stuff, it's an essential read. If not, it's good nonetheless. I give it a 4/5, but that scale is purely arbitrary.

Next time: Global Brain: The Evolution of the Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century

Immortality

2005-01-19T16:23:00.000-05:00

Slashdot is covering another article about the immortality guy with whom readers of my LJ should be familiar. This justifyably excites me. Part of the fuss of this has been about the consequences, and my response is this: let the consequences come. Society refuses to change, so let us force it to. This will offer an opportunity to introduce sweeping changes to how humanity views and organizes itself, and I for one embrace that opportunity.

Another exciting result of this would be the unimaginable expansion of knowledge. As thing stand now, we humans are wasting precious assloads of time and deterring our progress immensely simply by our life cycle. We have to reteach ourselves everything every generation. This not only wastes time, but puts a cap on the accomplishments possible in one lifetime, and leaves everyone else to build off of those. By these means, progress does occur, but only in painful increments. If, all of a sudden, we had an infinite amount of time to learn, the results would be phenomenal. Knowledge, no doubt, is cumulative. This would be a boon to all of humanity and would speed us up on the progress line by unquantifyable amounts.
This is fantastic shit.

Application essays

2005-01-16T14:21:00.000-05:00

Here lies the massive compilation of all essays written this college season in reverse chronological order. Each is pretty distinct, and I figure if you're bored enough to be reading my blog anyway, you can't be too bored to thoroughly enjoy these. A brief review precedes each, followed by the question in bold.

NYU

Writing this was like running the last five miles of a fucking marathon, and I believe it shows. I was counting down to word 500 like it was my birthday. A bit pessimistic to start with, but ending on a lighter note. Tells the story of how Reading, hellhole that it is, has made me a better person through its incessant gayness.

New York is a city full of people from other places. Everyone brings with them a story of where they are from. Tell us something about where you're from and what single facet of your hometown experience has shaped you into the person you are today.

I am the product of typical 1990's American suburbia. While you may be compelled to stop reading there (and I wouldn't blame you if you were), first allow me to expound. I am, indeed, a product of typical suburbia. I am not, however, a typical product. Herein lies the key to how my hometown has, in a paradoxical way, made massive contributions to my personality as it is today.
Reading Pennsylvania is, frankly, plastered with mundanity. The city itself has been overridden with poverty and crime for decades. Outside of it, the suburbs form a smooth and predictable gradient from city-side ghetto to rich outskirt developments. I've spent the entirety of my life smack-dab in the middle of this gradient, as the child of two low/medium income townhouse-inhabiting lower middle class citizens. I attended the local small Catholic grade school and went, along with twelve of my fourteen graduating classmates, on to the local Catholic high. Incidentally, I have since transferred to public school, but that's a whole other story for another essay. Growing up, I was surrounded by morose stories of how utterly inescapable this town is, not the least impacting of which being those of my own two parents. As a teen, my friends were rather keen on how little there was to do in Reading, and not unjustifiably so. As a child, my best friends were my video games and the television, mostly due to a shortage of kids in my own neighborhood and lack of like-minded individuals in any others.
It was this kind of blasé existence that drove one to either settle for mediocrity, or retreat to their dreams. Without question, I was among the latter. The dull outer world inspired a rich inner one. I was fortunate enough to be growing up at the same time as the internet, so my mind wasn't limited by the same excruciating boundaries as my body. The information superhighway sated my boredom with life in the 'burbs. Cable cords and phone lines were the vehicles of my youthful interests and the issuers of my teenage hobbies. It is in this way that Reading had made of me a dreamer. By the same token, it had also made of me a recluse. As much as I look back on the circumstances of my youth with disdain for the latter, I am at the same time immeasurably indebted for the former. The inner focus forced upon me (or afforded to me, depending on how optimistic about the whole thing you want to be) and the introspection that resulted has made me into a serious philosopher and a stringent truth seeker. It has made me, while in some ways pessimistic about my childhood (though not nearly as much as I may have indicated), incredibly optimistic about my future. I will not settle. I will not accept a future weighted down by my hometown. I will not pursue a life of idle fantasy. I will make something of my dreams and put to good use what I gained from my experiences in the stagnant suburbs of Reading, PA.

Princeton

These three are among the most well and academically written. Nothing much else to say of them.

Write on any other topic of your choice or design.

I've been having somewhat of a dilemma recently. Throughout history, mankind has confronted the problems of existence, has asked the questions of existence, and has sought the answers to said questions and problems. Normally, he has done so by appealing to a higher power, be it a parent, a teacher, a sage, or a god. Humans often assume that those with more experience and knowledge than they have all the answers, and many are perfectly comfortable with seeking solace in whatever wisdom may be supplied. Humans endlessly seek security, and are almost always frightened by the unknown. This is why having a stable concept of oneself and one's environment is so vital to preserving peace of mind. For the majority of my life, I followed this same pattern of thought. However, while my own wisdom and understanding have grown, my childlike trust in the powers that be has not. In my unending quest for knowledge, I have become quite the skeptic towards traditional human wisdom. In my mind, the large majority of human society and culture has been forged by the blind eye of human nature and, as such, is not necessarily a reliable source of truth. In that way, I've found my faith in conventional knowledge waning, and I've found myself somewhat stranded as a truth-seeker without senior. That's not too say I'm so conceited as to see myself as the highest beacon of truth – obviously, far from it. What I mean is simply that I cannot honestly say to myself, “Hey, no need for concern, X has it all figured out.” I've come to realize, in the course of my maturation, that none of us really have it “all figured out”. Those who profess to, and those who are able to demonstrate so reliably, have become the revered ones of history, those whose teaching the common man turns to in order to satisfy his own insecurity on the matter.
For some time, I endured a profound loneliness as a result of this realization. I felt lost in the sea of existence, with no one to guide me. It was then that I realized something amazing. If I could not look to anyone else to supply me with the answers, I simply must answer myself. Rather than relying on the greatest physicists of the day to discover the nature of the universe for me, rather than relying on the most renown biologists to show me the truth behind my struggle for existence, rather than relying on psychologists and sociologists to tell me how myself and society should behave, these were all things I must pioneer myself.
I suppose it is only when one is not satisfied with the answers given to him that he excels and becomes one to supply others with that very security that he could not find himself. In this realization itself, I believe I have found a new template by which to live. In that realization, I have found and will continue to find the solace and the knowledge that I seek. It is in that spirit that I will pursue the answers for the good of all. After all, man will do anything for some security.

What talent, accomplishment, or pursuit has given you the greatest joy or satisfaction?

Ironic as it seems, the pursuit that I have aspired in the most is not necessarily the one that has rewarded me with the most joy. In my life, the equality of ignorance and bliss has proven itself beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless of this, I still value truth above all. It is largely this, the pursuit of truth, which has had the greatest influence on me and inspired me the most significantly. While not always the most joyful pursuit, the case can be made that it is a rather satisfying one. No doubt, there is something innately rewarding about knowledge and understanding. Not only that, but while it may often be that “the truth hurts,” it is also true that reason and logic can be two of man's greatest allies. When emotions fail us, the unfaltering path of truth can act as a guiding light. Not subject to uncontrollable external influence and constant change in the way that emotions tend to be, reason offers a much more stable basis on which to pattern one's life. Because of this, while the search for truth may not be as romantic as idle quixotic ventures, it can be much more rewarding in the end. It is in this spirit that I have committed myself to truth-seeking. Not to give the impression that I'm some sort of jaded, emotionless drone – quite the opposite. I simply find that the best way to live one's life is in continual pursuit against ignorance; for while ignorance is bliss, it is also the path to pain.

Tell us about yourself in such a way that we will have a good sense of who you are.

There are three primary traits that, I've found, can succinctly define my personality. This is no trivial accomplishment on the part of said traits, as personality is something that is extraordinarily multifaceted and surprisingly versatile. The three tendencies that have persisted throughout my life thus far are these: my inquisitiveness, my analytical nature, and my strong dedication. No matter the life situation, mindset, belief system, or environment, these are three aspects of myself that have never ceased their presence. Other than these abstract and basic qualities, I cannot so much as hope to offer, with any certainty, an assessment of my personality (and much less so within 250 words). This is simply because, in my experience, the large majority of personality is dependent and transient. Human existence is an exercise in metamorphosis – we are constantly reforming, adapting, and evolving our mental landscape around a bombardment of new circumstances. To assume that at any given moment one's personality is composed of a fixed set of traits, rather than an ever-changing conglomeration, is, I believe, a fallacy of perspective. The cascade of traits that make up the self is so compounded and complex that, while it may appear on the surface to be a uniform set, it takes but a quick peek beneath the surface to realize that nothing could be further from the truth.
Rather than spending time with imprecise descriptions and broad generalizations of my personality, I'd rather spend it explaining the injustices of doing so. In that, I hope more of myself could be revealed than is possible in any face-value expose.

U Penn

Unintended brown-nosing abound. I was able to get across some viewpoints that I find essential, but overall, these weren't extremely well-written.

Describe the courses of study and the unique characteristics of the University of Pennsylvania that most interest you. Why do these interests make you a good match for Penn?

One of the most outstanding qualities of Penn is its genuine interest in students who are passionate about their work. This interest has, no doubt, assisted in making Penn the prominent and prestigious establishment that it is today. Penn recognizes the significance of enthusiasm and dedication in its graduates, and rightfully so – it is those devoted pioneers who will achieve greatness. As one who has always been extremely dedicated to what I do, I have very understandably strong convictions about this. One of the key differences between college and high school, and perhaps the difference that I am most enthused about, is the focus on individual interests rather than broad, general, and indiscriminate education. While I am no dissenter of the teaching of a wide range of subjects, I have found that secondary schooling in general tends to be less of an exercise in learning and more an exercise in following instructions. Rather than allowing students to truly explore the depths of academia, most schools are disparagingly restrictive in their course of studies. Personally, I believe that I have gained more through my own extracurricular studies over the last four years than I have in the class room. The simple reason for this is interest, and the vehicle for interest is dedication. College is where this distinction becomes no more. College is where harmony between the individual's pursuit and the individual's education can be found. If Penn is especially attentive to this, then Penn truly understands the desires of the rising professional.
How is it that one can excel in an AP-level elective course, yet achieve mediocre grades in a mere academic class? Surely the reason for poor performance is not ability, nor is it necessarily laziness. The principal factor is interest. Unfortunately, such specialization is discriminated against in our modern grading system. This difference in score is eliminated outright in our prevalent forms of performance assessment, which are primarily based on simple averages. While the average is one of the most powerful tools in the statistician's arsenal, it can also be one of the most misleading. For the student who enthusiastically works at an outstanding level in his favorite subject, yet fails to achieve the same level of work in an area to which he is indifferent, the grade point average offers no remorse. I do not believe such a student should be discriminated against. In fact, perhaps, quite the opposite. It is this student who will go on to become an outstanding major, and this student who will eventually become an outstanding contribution to his field. Rather than rewarding students for their ability to mechanically follow directions in any given area, we should be rewarding students for their ability to categorize and pursue the area that is most inspiring to them. I believe that Penn understands this all-too oft overlooked truth, making Penn by far one of the most perceptive academic establishments of the day. It is this insight that entices me most about Penn, and it is because of this that I look forward to furthering my education and exploring my interests at Penn.

Recall an occasion when you took a risk that you now know was the right thing to do.

At times, one finds himself a cruel victim of fate. Occasionally, one must rise up against situations that were placed upon him at a time when he had no control over his environment. In June of 2002, I found myself in that position. For the last nine years of my life, I had been quietly and obediently attending private catholic school in a relatively low-class suburb of the city of Reading. I grew up in a school with one class per grade, and no more than thirty in my class at a time. I graduated from eighth grade with a class of fourteen, only one of which had spent the entire nine years (kindergarten through eighth grade) along with me. My best friend had left in seventh grade to pursue an education at the local public junior/senior high school, Wyomissing. Knowing nothing of this school, other than that some of its students came to mine every Tuesday night and wreaked havoc on the desks and classrooms (part of a religious supplemental education program), I never considered it as an option. The Wyomissing kids had always appeared to me as frightening, elitist bullies, and I wanted no part in that. Obviously, these were delusions brought about by my secluded private-school social life. The reality of the situation, far beyond my naïve grasp, was that Wyomissing offered a much richer program for its high school students and many of my classmates were transferring out for that reason. That said, come time to choose a high school, I unwittingly chose the local private high. A social outcast in my tiny grade school, I expected the much larger high school to offer me a chance to find my place among the people. I was wrong. It would not be until that spring that I would find some semblance of a group and earn my first true friends since the seventh grade. These friends would not be found at my private high-school. Ironically, these friends hailed from the same place as those elitist bullies of my youth.
By that May, I was convinced. With no incentive whatsoever to continue my private education, I made the leap that I had found unthinkable but a year before. By September of 2002, I had joined the ranks of the “elitist bullies”. Since then, I have never looked back. In the two and a half short years I've spent at Wyomissing, I have come to realize how damaging and limited my private schooling truly was. I have also come ridiculously far in that time, socially, intellectually, and emotionally. In a way, I owe some to my old school, if only for allowing me to appreciate what I have now all that much more. At Wyomissing, I was finally able to find people who shared my interests, able to pursue new interests through much more advanced and expansive academic programs, and, as a result of these, able to mature much further than I ever could have had I stuck to the beaten path. Of all the decisions I have made, among those few which have significantly affected my life as a whole, I can confidently say this was the greatest.

Temple/Drexel/Pitt

This sucks, but nobody cares about these colleges.

Please relate one or more experiences or circumstances that have contributed significantly to your personal and/or academic development.

Ironically, perhaps the most meaningful contribution to my academic career has come as a result of that career itself. I entered 11th grade with a comparatively bleak outlook for my scholastic future, and left it with a firmly established goal. Why such a turnaround? My conversion can be traced back to what was, essentially, a fluke.
This odd turn of events began in 10th grade, when I haphazardly registered for AP Psychology on my 11th grade course selection sheet. Come summer, I was already under the mistaken impression that I had not been admitted to the class. Upon receiving my schedule for the upcoming year, I was shocked to see that, in fact, I had been accepted. The unfortunate twist to this, as I would learn just a week before break's end, was that a summer project had been assigned to the students taking the class. On school's return, I was faced with the difficult choice of asking for an extension and completing the project, or opting out and taking a less intensive class. Scheduling pressures, however, prompted me to skip my alternate choice, mutlimedia, and stick with psychology.
Now, at that time, my main career plans involved primarily one thing: mutlimedia production. My college plans were merely to attend a technical or private school focused around media, and graduate with an associate's degree in that field. Psychology class, however, piqued my interest. An armchair philosopher by nature, and one who has always been fascinated by the self and its surroundings, I found a class devoted to the mind and the mind's interactions with the environment absolutely fascinating.
As the year went on, I was disappointed to find that, while a brilliant and beautiful field, modern psychology was terribly fragmented. I learned that the field  rather, the several fields within  lacked focus, uniformity, consensus, and harmony. Convinced that this was unacceptable for a field intending to be considered a serious science, and that this was largely the result of a convoluted history, I became determined to right this wrong. By the end of that year, psychology had interested me so deeply that I had revoked all prior plans and decided on it as my likely major. Instead of an associate's degree, I would strive for a master's, if not a doctorate. Instead of a technical school, I would attend a university. Rather than subscribing to indifference and pursuing a niche field I was already accustomed to, I would work towards something new. I would strive for change and great contribution to a field that I believed sorely needed it.
In this way, that single class did more to spur my academic and personal life than anything prior. Since then my interest in and desire to influence the sciences has only grown, and some day  I've no doubt  I will accomplish this goal.

Film review: House of Flying Daggers

2005-01-16T01:25:00.000-05:00

House of Flying Daggers was not as supremely eye-candied as Hero (but moreso than any other movie ever, mind you), but the action and style of twisting was much better IMO. I wasn't all about the whole retrospective frame story concept. HoFD finds ways to deliver the same kind of cinematic experience as Hero while taking place entirely in the present. Plus, its story doesn't deny the universal truth that girls are irresponsible whores (no, I'm not ever going to get laid), and in fact exemplifies it quite well. Story wise, it wins an easy victory over Hero. Action wise, I enjoyed it more than Hero but they were probably about equal. Beauty wise, Hero wins if only for the awesome use of color. Don't get me wrong, HoFD contains some of the most incredible visuals to grace the screen, but Hero simply has more. If I have any gripes about it, it's that too much of the movie was spent in the same forest-type setting. That, and some of the snow at the end was very obviously 'shopped. Despite these, I proclaim it a phenomenal win.

First post!

2004-12-15T20:24:00.000-05:00

Hopefully to be followed by much more intellect and much less drama, in contrast to community-centric look-at-me-style attention-whoreish LiveJournal, and much more content, in contrast to the dating site disguised as a blog that is MySpace.
:O

Edit

I've pasted a few of my more significant posts from LJ over to here, so while this is in reality the first post, chronologically it no longer appears so. DO NOT BE ALARMED.

The future of society

2004-11-22T14:45:00.000-05:00

I had the biggest Eureka moment ever today in Econ. And to think, I said nothing comes of that class.

So I was thinking to myself last night as I walked home from the Avenue about the nature of self-preservation and how it ties into existence. I don't remember how it came about, but I recall contemplating the popsci doomsday scenario of superiorly intelligent creations overtaking their human creators and becoming the dominant inhabitants of this planet. I came to the conclusion that that will never happen, for this reason: in order for a single being or comparatively small group of them to overthrow humanity it would require an immense amount of resources. That line of action would be far less efficient than, say, the modification of itself to accomodate the scenario.
This line of thinking reveals two fundamentally different methods of attaining self-preservation; that of modifying the self, and that of modifying the environment. Extending this further, we can see that the efficiency of each method varies with the population size or density. With smaller groups or an individual, it is less costly to modify the self (note that this is how evoluton initially works, albeit usually in a somewhat trial-and-error fashion), while in large numbers, it is easier to modify the environment rather than each individual. I then saw that this relates directly to how different forms of life have become dominant on Earth. Humans are far from the most capable creatures on the planet as far as self-preservation goes. The reason we've been so successful, novel use of weapons aside, is largely because we've been able to completely overtake and shape the planet to our needs instead.

Looking closely enough, one will see that there are two principal sets of conflicting needs in man. First, and usually strongest, is the need for self-preservation through serving the self. Following this need, man is rewarded for attaining food, items, money in the common-day, etc. His aggressive nature is put to use in order to protect him or his property and to attain things in his environment. Consider a purely selfish state of existence.
Now analyze the other, conflicting drive. The social drive. The need to network within a group as an extension of the above. Here man is rewarded for contributions to the whole and his aggresiveness used to protect and uphold the group. This selfless system has become a secondary mechanism which has in time largely taken the forefront in our society.

Today in Econ we discussed the much-popularized NBA fight that occurred over the weekend. While watching and thinking "what a bunch of fucking dumbasses", I came to a sudden realization. The observation of drive number one taking full charge and absolutely dismissing drive number two smacked me in the face with the obvious answer. In order for humanity to prosper it must abandon the first method of self-preservation and embrace the second. We have become too dependent on society to ever survive on the old mechanism alone, and all it serves at this point in history is to encumber us with the need to slaughter our own. It is this drive that will kill us off in due time by its very nature. It will cause society to collapse, yet, on its own, it will not preserve the species. Thus, the conflict becomes our undoing. Granted, lacking this quality means that if we were ever reduced and dismantled as a society to a great enough extent, we would become extinct. However, it is my belief that at this point our chances of survival are far, far greater as a communal being rather than a mesh of conflicting individuals.
Be careful not to confuse what I speak of with an assimilated, undifferentiated society a la more science fiction doom. The only quality that should be eliminated is the individual's need to preserve himself over all others. This translates to the drop off of aggressive tendency and violence yet leaves innovation, invention, novelty, and genius untouched. Not only that, but defining ourselves in this new light opens the door for a true, logical system of morality because it gives life the definite purpose of preserving itself through the group. Indeed, with an overriding goal, right and wrong (rather, conducive and detrimental) can be correctly defined by reason rather than assumption and logic may prevail. The meaning of life as self-preservation is, of course, in the spirit of life itself, which makes use of the most incredible things (read: everything you are) in order to maintain its existence itself. I believe I may have been wrong in saying that, because it arose spontaneousy, life cannot have an inherent purpose. It may have done so, but it has had to persevere in order to not be destroyed spontaneously as it came. Life may still have purpose, as far as la raison d'etere is concerned. We are the movers. We are life. We must ensure our future by all means necessary for as long as our parent, the universe, permits us.

Even more intriguing is the possibility for our society to become so tightly-bound that it gains emergent properties of its own. For every system, when the elements of that system and their interactions break a certain threshold of complexity such that new and novel properties emerge from the whole, entirely different from those produced of each individual, that is emergence. It can be seen (or, rather, not seen) in life as a series of chemical interactions. It can be seen in consciousness as a set of cellular interactions. It can be seen in chemistry as the interactions of subatomic particles. Given enough complexity and enough interactivity, society may itself develop a sort of "consciousness" of its own. Granted, we may not see it individually, any more than each neuron sees a thought, but from a grand perspective, it is a rather exciting concept.

So, ideally, we as a group need to drop the baggage of our individualistic drives in order to truly evolve and grow as a species. That's my preliminary conclusion, anyway. I'm sure there will become more to this idea as it develops.

Memoir

2004-11-16T20:16:00.000-05:00

Man, for some reason school today really brought out the nostalgia in me. It made me re-realize something that I've already realized long ago, but haven't paid fair due to.

I really fucking miss last year.
Back then, college wasn't yet a reality. I was still stuck in my little pocket-of-a-life that I'm now watching peel away.
Back then, my view on life wasn't even close to as sordidly nihilistic as it is today.
Back then, Carolanne was always around to joke with. Laura was always around to ridicule. Danielle was always around to chat with. And Jenny was always there to hold my hand.
Back then my most strenuous classes consisted of AP Psych and Academic English. And they were both total bullshit. My teachers last year were so awesome, all of them. Mr. Nugent, Mrs. Santoro, Mr. Minich, Mr. Uliaz, Mann/Alcaro/Gallagher (especially Gallagher)/Dramby, and Mrs. O. We had such a badass time in all those classes. Yes, including Mrs. O's. That was one of the greatest ever since the porn speech.
My classes aren't horrible this year... but they're not the quality of the aforementioned. While I don't want to downplay the friends that I do still have, the halls are still so incredibly empty this year. I'll never need to fear the pain of Carolanne's nipple-twisting or Jenny's side-stabbing again. My study halls are filled with homework, research, reading, and surfing the web rather than talking to Danielle or snuggling with Jenny. Everything is so washed-out, empty and dry this year.

But by the same token, I owe a whole hell of a lot to these guys. Were it not for them and Salon, I don't know where I'd be now... but it'd certainly be somewhere with a lot less to do and far fewer friends. Were it not for them, I'd probably be traversing my senior and last year here idly and to myself, with all my old friends gone away and all the newness of my school worn out. I'd most likely still be hung up over a certain maniacal icy bitch (and not of the babe-in-total-control variety) and largely restricted to lol internet sociology. Which is kind of like riding a single-speed with training wheels on the Tour de France.

I've no doubt in my mind that last year was among the greatest, if not the greatest, of all time, ranking in place with 6th and 8th. 10th grade was incredibly epic, but not exactly joyful. 9th ranks just under 5th and 7th as the worst. Anything before 5th doesn't count. This year will attain its own epic proportions, I'm sure. But for now, last year is the one to be nostalgic about. I miss all you guys who were a part of that, and I'm gonna continue to. Thanks for giving me the time you did, I'll appreciate it for as long as I live.

Election day plea

2004-11-01T21:45:00.000-05:00

To all of you registered voters reading my journal, tomorrow you will be doing something that I fell but six days short of. In this, I beg you to vote with the future of my country in mind. The next four years of my life will be directly affected by the kind of research opportunities I am presented, the kind of employment opportunities I am given, the kind of opinion that is held of me by the international community, the kind of enemies my country is making, the kind of progress our scientists are allowed to make, the kind of morals that are governing my society, and, commandeering all this, the kind of administration that is running my government. I ask you, please, please do not cut out the immense progress our sciences are making in favor of irrational, ancient moral justifications. Do not allow my country to be led by men who follow their hearts rather than their ears and their minds. Do not allow the world to be terrorized by arrogant, thick-headed bastards with no sense of diplomacy. I do not want a world ruled by fear and irrationality. I do not want a repeat of the last three years. I want my tax dollars to be returned to me in the form of progress and scientific breakthroughs, rather than blown to hell on someone else's battlefield. I want an international table governed by reason -- a community where, when we are demonized, we are able to ascertain the reason why and work out the steps needed to reach a compromise. That is, a compromise that doesn't involve murdering 100,000 civilian citizens of a third world nation. I want a nation that will not be hung up on primitive, ridiculous issues such as gay marriage. I want a nation not ruled by the falsehoods of our ignorant past. I want a nation that will readily move away from the locks of conservatism and embrace the changing face of humanity; a government that will allow us to leave man's childhood behind, rather than retarding our growth. I'd prefer a government that didn't directly lie to me about how threatened or secure I am. I will be very, very depressed, worried, and cynical about the future if tomorrow you chose to elect George Bush as second term president of the United States of America. I fear this post is an excercise in futility -- I'm sure you're all strong in your convictions. But if you are voting for Bush tomorrow, please, first reconsider what it will do to the world and country in which we live. Not what I want, not what is good for America, and not what is best for the world.