Hey all! I hope everyone's doing well... From what I've heard, school is starting up again for the quarter system peeps and going strong for those in the semester system. It's weird considering I have no connection to UCLA anymore. I just left my job at ASUCLA so I actually feel pressure to go out and job search rather than being comfy. I may have a possibility lined up, though, so here's to hoping!
Anyways, I don't really feel like writing anything too psychological or didactic, so I'm just going to be throwing out a random problem I've been thinking about... Some of you may have heard of him, but there was a famous philosopher named Zeno who had a bunch of paradoxes. Not all of the paradoxes may have been his (according to wiki, but I'm too lazy to check for sure), but they're definitely associated with him. The paradox I've been having trouble with is what is labelled the Dichotomy paradox.
Essentially, think of getting from where you are to another place, like your front door. At first, it just seems like a simple ten feet to get there. But! In order to walk those ten feet, you must first walk five feet. But! In order to walk those five feet, you must first walk two and a half feet. You see where this is going?
In order to walk any distance, you must first walk half of that. Yet, the problem is, you can take the half of something infinitely... If this is truly the case, then that means there's an infinite number of points between your seat and the front door. Yet, infinity itself is not something that can be covered, hence the definition of infinite... So, how does one cross infinity?
This is a concept I just cannot warp my head around. I start to think that it's a finite distance, and thus one is easily able to cross it. Yet, there is still an infinite amount of points in that finite distance. Does that make the distance between where you are and the front door infinite? Theoretically, maybe, but realistically, no... We do happen to cross over an infinite number of points every day, meaning that it can happen... Right?
Iono really, anymore... Zeno hypothesized (according to Wiki) that motion is just an illusion, and that's how we "cross" over the infinite... We're not doing any crossing, so to speak, but we are deceived into thinking so. I know there's a better way to explain this, sorry, but that's the basic gist of it.
If motion is infinite and an illusion, the same could be said about time... Between you and an hour later stands, well, an hour of time. Yet, to wait an hour, one must first wait thirty minutes. But, even before that, one must wait fifteen minutes, and ad infinitum. So, again, the same idea, but an infinite amount of time has to pass for a finite amount of time to pass... It just blows my mind...
One thought that should be brought up here is that maybe this phenomenon has to do with the point that time is relative... In other words, maybe time itself is not absolute. I know that sounds weird, but I'm just throwing ideas out there. I don't really know at all... With thought experiments like the Twin Paradox (found here), the passage of time is shown to be relative to speed. The basic idea of the twin paradox is that two twins are born on earth, yet one goes on a super speedy rocket around the earth. When the rocket twin returns, he's only aged five years. But, the twin on earth has aged ten years. It has something to do with special relatively, but the closer one approaches the speed of light, the slower time passes for him, even if it appears the same. In other words, it felt like five years for the rocket twin, but if felt like ten years for the twin on earth. Trippy...
Maybe time itself is an illusion... That, or we don't properly understand time yet. I could be more inclined to Zeno's stance of time being an illusion, but that's really, really weird to think... I mean, I believe I'm sitting here typing this and minutes are passing by, but is it really happening gradually or something all at once without me realizing it?
Is it really possible to exist outside of time, though..? I mean, it doesn't seem like one should be able to do anything if you are not subjected to being a part of time. Yet, God himself is supposed to exist outside of time... I guess that could make sense, considering that God made light in the first place, which means he shouldn't be subject to time (if we do understand time correctly), but it's very hard to wrap my head around. I guess this explanation would lend itself more towards the idea of time being an illusion, but... I don't know, I just can't process that... Odd stuff.
Anyways, my head is starting to hurt, so I think it's time to call it quits. Peace out, y'all!
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Bob Talbert is Part of the Mafia?!
Hey all! Long time, no write. Of course, I say that just about every time I write now, so I guess y'all should be used to it.
Anyways, things have been really calm over on my end. I'm done with school now, so I've just been working with a bit of gaming (read as: gaming all day). I talked recently with a few friends, though, so some ideas have been revitalized. Forgive me if I'm a bit scatterbrained while writing this post since I haven't done this for a while...
Some of you may know about Bob Talbert, and others of you may not... For those of you who read the title of this post, though, I want you to know that Bob Talbert is not actually associated with the Mafia. The funny thing is, though, that that's probably not going to change your opinion about him. What do I mean by that?
Simple, really... Anyways, I don't have access to the scholarly article, so you'll have to trust me on this one... But, in an experiment by Wegner, Wenzlaff, Kerker, and Beattie (1991) (http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=6333 for a secondary article reference), the use of innuendo was tested for impressions of public figures. Essentially, various participants were given an article about a man named Bob Talbert. What the researchers manipulated was the title of each article. Some articles were neutral and talked about Bob Talbert arriving in the city. But, other articles were directly incriminating, such as, "Bob Talbert Linked to the Mafia." Yet, others articles insinuated something negative, such as, "Bob Talbert Linked to the Mafia?" or "Bob Talbert not Linked to the Mafia." After all the participants read their articles, they were asked to rate how favorably they viewed Bob Talbert.
For those that read the article with the neutral title, Bob Talbert was rated, on average, neutrally (big surprise, right?). For those that read the article with the negative title, Bob Talbert was rated negatively (again, another big surprise). Yet, the crazy thing, the participants that had the articles that insinuated something negative rated Bob Talbert just as negatively, on average, as those that read the negative article about Bob Talbert. Crazy, right?
Theoretically, the articles that had negative insinuations shouldn't have Bob Talbert rated as negatively as the articles that are directly negative. Why would an article that asks or even states that Bob Talbert's not linked to the Mafia lead to people viewing him so negatively? The researchers hypothesized that the first impressions people have of others are very hard to dispel... Even if it's stated that Bob Talbert's not linked to the Mafia, the main idea that sticks out is 'Bob Talbert' and 'Mafia.' Thus, even if you consciously think otherwise and know better, it is hard to unconsciously not associate the two.
One of the initial concerns is that this shows how devastating rumors may be... Even if rumors and gossip just raise the question and aren't direct accusations, they may still give way to these negative impressions. This can lead to people having a negative interaction with the person (or 'victim') of the rumors, thus reinforcing their own suspicions and negative impressions about the 'victim.' This could be true for negative first impressions as well. If it's a first time meeting, ceteris paribus, and the 'victim' gives a negative impression to others, it would be difficult for others to change their view of the 'victim.' But, I digress.
So, how would one break out of this vicious cycle? Quite simply, people would really have to get to know the 'victim.' If after interacting people see there's no evidence for the accusation, or even if they come to start to like the 'victim,' impressions should change. Of course, like I mentioned before, it's hard to change a negative impression if people already view you negatively, so it would probably be something that would require a bit of work. If somebody holds a view against you because of rumor or gossip, though, it may be a testament about that person themselves...
I guess it's just important to remember that sometimes our first impressions aren't always the best impressions. Even if we happen to hear something about someone, it may be good to try and hold off judging that person before really getting to know them. Atticus always did mention walking a mile in another person's shoes, right? Sounds like a good way to go.
Anyways, things have been really calm over on my end. I'm done with school now, so I've just been working with a bit of gaming (read as: gaming all day). I talked recently with a few friends, though, so some ideas have been revitalized. Forgive me if I'm a bit scatterbrained while writing this post since I haven't done this for a while...
Some of you may know about Bob Talbert, and others of you may not... For those of you who read the title of this post, though, I want you to know that Bob Talbert is not actually associated with the Mafia. The funny thing is, though, that that's probably not going to change your opinion about him. What do I mean by that?
Simple, really... Anyways, I don't have access to the scholarly article, so you'll have to trust me on this one... But, in an experiment by Wegner, Wenzlaff, Kerker, and Beattie (1991) (http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=6333 for a secondary article reference), the use of innuendo was tested for impressions of public figures. Essentially, various participants were given an article about a man named Bob Talbert. What the researchers manipulated was the title of each article. Some articles were neutral and talked about Bob Talbert arriving in the city. But, other articles were directly incriminating, such as, "Bob Talbert Linked to the Mafia." Yet, others articles insinuated something negative, such as, "Bob Talbert Linked to the Mafia?" or "Bob Talbert not Linked to the Mafia." After all the participants read their articles, they were asked to rate how favorably they viewed Bob Talbert.
For those that read the article with the neutral title, Bob Talbert was rated, on average, neutrally (big surprise, right?). For those that read the article with the negative title, Bob Talbert was rated negatively (again, another big surprise). Yet, the crazy thing, the participants that had the articles that insinuated something negative rated Bob Talbert just as negatively, on average, as those that read the negative article about Bob Talbert. Crazy, right?
Theoretically, the articles that had negative insinuations shouldn't have Bob Talbert rated as negatively as the articles that are directly negative. Why would an article that asks or even states that Bob Talbert's not linked to the Mafia lead to people viewing him so negatively? The researchers hypothesized that the first impressions people have of others are very hard to dispel... Even if it's stated that Bob Talbert's not linked to the Mafia, the main idea that sticks out is 'Bob Talbert' and 'Mafia.' Thus, even if you consciously think otherwise and know better, it is hard to unconsciously not associate the two.
One of the initial concerns is that this shows how devastating rumors may be... Even if rumors and gossip just raise the question and aren't direct accusations, they may still give way to these negative impressions. This can lead to people having a negative interaction with the person (or 'victim') of the rumors, thus reinforcing their own suspicions and negative impressions about the 'victim.' This could be true for negative first impressions as well. If it's a first time meeting, ceteris paribus, and the 'victim' gives a negative impression to others, it would be difficult for others to change their view of the 'victim.' But, I digress.
So, how would one break out of this vicious cycle? Quite simply, people would really have to get to know the 'victim.' If after interacting people see there's no evidence for the accusation, or even if they come to start to like the 'victim,' impressions should change. Of course, like I mentioned before, it's hard to change a negative impression if people already view you negatively, so it would probably be something that would require a bit of work. If somebody holds a view against you because of rumor or gossip, though, it may be a testament about that person themselves...
I guess it's just important to remember that sometimes our first impressions aren't always the best impressions. Even if we happen to hear something about someone, it may be good to try and hold off judging that person before really getting to know them. Atticus always did mention walking a mile in another person's shoes, right? Sounds like a good way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
