Tag Archives: Psychology

Internet Memes

Wikipedia definition:
The term Internet meme is a neologism used to describe a catchphrase or concept that spreads quickly from person to person via the Internet.

Internet memes in a way, are the online version of chain letters.  Most are silly and uninteresting.  A waste of cyberspace.  The blogger Nessa, tagged me on the following Internet Meme and whilst I usually avoid them, this one in particular has an appeal strong enough to compel a response.

The objective is to enter your answer to each question into Google and then choose an image from the first page.  Some cheat and swipe an image from any page.  Others choose their target based on aesthetic—either what they find ‘pretty’ or ‘beautiful’ and/or what they think others will like with a primary purpose to impress.  Whatever their reasons, they are a byproduct of intellectual laziness with a flair of conformity.

I see this meme foremost as a psychological exercise.  By sticking to the rules, it necessarily forces specificity on the author, thereby transforming it into an enjoyable logically inductive experience.  The images are both ambiguous and highly descriptive.  Many of the images in my response contain more than one meaning; specific search criteria and selective scrutiny within the confines of Google search engine.

As an example, I have chosen the first image because I will be 28 on my next birthday, enjoyed the film 28 Weeks Later, and the biohazard sign is one of the symbols for Androgyne.  My answers are all contained within the images, accessible for those that can decipher them.  It is a two-way psychological mindfuck regardless of whether or not people manage to interpret accurately.

Therein lies the full extent of the allure.

Note: Whatever you choose to believe, I will neither confirm nor deny.

1. The age you will be on your next birthday.

2. A place you’d like to travel to.

3. Your favourite place.

4. Your favourite food.

5. Your favourite pet.

6. Your favourite colour combination.

7. Your favourite piece of clothing.

8. Your favourite TV show.

11. Your first job.

13. A bad habit you have.

14. Your worst fear.

15. What you would like to do before you die.


Advertisements

I am Androgyne

Androgyny is a State of Mind

Androgyne (pronounced AN-dra-jine) is the term used to describe persons who are androgynous. Androgyny, first and foremost, is a state of mind, not just an attitude or fashion statement. The notion that only androgynous-looking people can be or are androgynous is a misconception. Androgynes can be said to have the gender identity of both a man and a woman — or neither. Some identify with both traditional genders, while others see their identity as more of a synthesis and consider themselves to be agendered, as in “other” or “none of the above.”

I am Androgyne.  Biologically, I am of one sex.  Psychologically, I am neither masculine nor feminine.  Most humans enter a room and identify kindred based on their sex.  It binds them together.  Conversely, when I enter a room I identify no more with those of my biological sex than I do with those of my opposite.

Masculinity and femininity are constructs to me.  I understand them as I would any other type of construct, through observation and analysis.  As such, they bear no relevance to me.  I can be ‘one of the guys’ as easily as I can be ‘one of the girls’ only it is always a role to put on in the same manner as clothes.  One can wear clothes, but at no point does one become the clothes.  Although, it should be noted that I rarely choose to take on either of the binary genders.  I find the act constricting, unnatural, and undesirable.

The human mind has a natural inclination to separate and group objects in an effort to understand.  Objects A belong on the left and Objects B on the right.  Men on the left and Women on the right.  Manhood and womanhood are an important part of many people’s identity.  It inescapably accompanies their every action and thought.  Attempt to abolish the gap between them and the greater their proximity to each other, the greater the difficulty in understanding.

Nonetheless, if you superimpose masculinity with femininity, whilst difficult to relate to for the average person, they can at least envision a mixture of the two since they are already in possession of one.  On the other hand, the concept of being devoid of the experience of masculinity or femininity usually results in a ‘does not compute’ error message.  It is an understandable response.  Humans relate to others and their environment through an inner comparison of their accumulated experiences.  In a way, identifying as one gender or even both is almost as foreign to me as lacking gender is to those in possession of one or both.

I have always been Androgyne.  Yet, it is only recently that I discovered there is a word for what I am and most importantly, that there are others like me.  I am a 27 year old retired actor.  Looking back, I realize the major appeal of acting for me is its inherent duality.  You are at once yourself and the character you portray.  Your character’s actions and words are simultaneously yours and not.

For most of humanity, personal identity is very linked to physical identity.  It is not something the average person need consider.  In my case, my physical body is not a manifestation of my psychological identity and vice versa.

If tomorrow my body were miraculously transformed into the opposite sex, it would be no more accurate a representation of me than my current one.  This lack of consistency leads some Androgynes to adopt an androgynous physical appearance whether in attire or through surgery or both.

Perhaps this offers greater satisfaction to Androgynes that view themselves as both genders.  For those that see themselves as neither gender, as I do, the experience may be less gratifying.  Of course, this is not to dismiss its appeal.  I have a sophisticated utilitarian sense of clothing style, and whilst I am identified as my biological sex the majority of the time, my appearance is androgynous enough to draw attention.

Debate and Commentary, Perceptions and Misconceptions

I recently changed my About information by replacing the word ‘agnostic’ with ‘atheist’ and in the interest of Atheism awareness, included the scarlet A on the front page. I performed a tag search on Atheism and stumbled across a blog entry by a Christian. Of all the Christian entries that popped up, his appealed to me the most. His major claim was not only that an Atheist’s God was Science, but went as far as to say he believed Atheism to be a religion–which is plain ludicrous. I will not address the reasons here as I already stated many on his entry ‘Blinded me with science.’

I commented on Deacon Blue’s blog (is an actual Deacon by the way), because beneath the bad points, I perceived a genuine desire to understand Atheism and his logic skills were a bit better than the average person’s. I thought he was more misguided than anything else, and that had mostly been a byproduct of beginning with a faulty premise. Once you do that, your chances of arriving at truth are severely handicapped.

The debate began well. Yet, soon enough, it went to hell. Anyone who has read my previous posts here and/or comments on other blogs such as Nessa’s, quickly realizes I have a direct and unapologetic attitude. I detest hypocrisy. If I believe you to be deluded and/or misguided for example, I make no attempts to hide it. If I believe my arguments are superior to yours, I will not say, ‘your idea of truth is just as valid as my own.’

Logic has rules for a reason. Some arguments are better than others. I will not lie just to make you feel better about yourself. Conversely, I have no respect for someone who decides to lie to me to keep from offending my sensibilities. Growth comes from being challenged. How presumptuous to think they understand what truths I can or cannot handle. The choice is mine to make. How presumptuous to think I place my own emotional comfort above truth. To do so, is disgustingly weak.

I decided to stop posting on Deacon Blue’s blog. Below is a quote from his response to my final post.

The time I have spent responding to you is time I have NOT spent writing my next post. According to my own internal schedule, I am behind. In fact, I have now missed a day of posting. In that sense, Satan is using you quite nicely, because I have been moved, either through defensiveness or pride…or both…into engaging you even though it is clear that discussion with you has become a circular argument and a dance with no end in sight.

It was not a circular argument. I was pointing out contradictions in his claims, and when his counter arguments contained more contradictions, I pointed those out too. His logic was poor. He accused me of trying to poke holes and tear apart his arguments when that is precisely what the point of debate is. If you make a claim, it must survive rigorous testing or it is just a bad claim.

He then became defensive and emotional. He said that I was attacking him and trying to make him look like a fool. He mistook aggressive debate with aggression against him personally. I said I considered his view a delusion and proceeded to explain why. If my arguments are strong enough to mow down his, it does not necessarily make him a fool. If he felt like a fool, that is an entirely different matter.

He said one cannot help but feel wounded if one loses points. This is not true either. It sounds like low self-esteem. Perhaps he cannot help but feel wounded. But, even if he did, that does not excuse his emotional responses to me. Defensiveness has no place in a debate other than making you look bad. If you ‘lose points,’ then make better arguments to gain more. Do not turn around and say that I am out to get you, when in reality, I am far more interested in the debate itself than in you as a person.

That last claim of his is so baffling to me. I have no qualms about admitting I consider many people to be intellectually inferior. Even so, there is a difference between considering someone intellectually inferior to an extent that simply makes them average in regards to the general population, and then there is thinking someone a downright idiot. Really, if I think you an idiot, you are beneath me. It is not worthwhile for me to acknowledge your existence. I certainly would never post on your blog.

Furthermore, if my intent had been to offend, it would be reasonable to assume given my directness, that I would leave as little to interpretation as possible. I would use my eloquence to annihilate your character, your humanity, and all that you stand for. But, such an act would demand a great deal of emotional investment from me. For someone who is usually by considered by others logical to the point of robotic, such an investment seems . . . not worth the trouble and uncharacteristic at best.

If I may make an analogy, if this site is my dinner-table discussion with folks, you have started to veer into the realm of the guest who in an effort to show just how smart he or she is just forgets when to be quiet and let people talk about something different. That may not be your intention, but it sure seems like it at this point.

My dinner-table discussions must be very different from his. Heaven forbid I say enough to make me sound smart. If I see a multitude of holes in an argument, I must point out only one just to show that I am paying attention. I must not say any more or others will start to feel inferior and defensive. I must be quiet so that others get a chance to contribute and therefore feel we are all intellectual equals.

If they proceed to counter with an argument that has holes, I cannot say more because it its not my turn yet. When my turn comes again, I cannot propose a counter an argument against what anyone said whilst I sat quietly in waiting or it would be proclaimed a circular argument. Worse, if that counter argument is strong, I will unfortunately show just how smart I am. It may not be my intention, but I will make a nuisance of myself!

At any rate, Deacon Blue claims in his last response to me that I am welcome to post on his blog as along as I follow the rules from his particular version of dinner-table discussion–rules which by the way, he states only now and were supposed to be obvious before. I do not know what would possess him to say that. Political correctness? I stated several times that I enjoy debate and even went on to describe what type. It is entirely incompatible with his penchant for commentary only. My approach is disruptive to him. Satan is ‘using me quite nicely’ to prevent him from making new blog entries because he continues to respond to my comments ‘either through defensiveness or pride . . . or both.”

The above, are poor reasons to debate. Avoid ulcers by doing so because you like it. The main problems with Deacon Blue is that he is prone to overreacting, making arguments that contradict, and lacks specificity. At one point, he refers to our exchange as a never ending dance. If this were so, there would be no need for defensiveness and overreacting. Those responses make sense if you see yourself in a quarrel or at war, things which he keeps denying all the while acting in ways that undermine his objections.

He ends with the following:

*sigh* Now I probably look like someone who doesn’t want to hear any other opinions. And maybe I have overreacted. But I’m tired of hashing out a dead topic.

Actually, he does sound like he wants to hear other opinions–the latter being the operative word. Opinions do not have to be supported. Arguments on the other hand, demand it. It may not make you sound very open minded, but that is a price to pay for your desires. When you make any type of stand, you must be prepared to deal with the consequences. If you cannot handle people picking apart your statements, do not claim to be open minded to all types of discussions. He should make this clear, because evidently his blog is new and when more Atheists stumble upon it, what happened between us will occur once again.

To avoid it, he should make a note on his About Page that opinions are preferred over arguments. Of course, not only will he not be respected by most Atheists who read it, but also written off as another Christian that lives in a bubble. If he wants to appeal to Atheists, he will need to grow thicker skin and welcome rigorous arguments or else eliminate Atheists from his list of target audiences. This is no doubt a difficult decision to make for someone who sees himself as fighting a war against Satan.

As for my own blog, I will not say that I welcome all types of persons to comment. I definitely do not. I am not receptive to bullshit.

You need not be a genius. Your logic need not be equal or superior to mine. But, if you cling to bad arguments just because and fail to acknowledge a superior argument out of pride, this is not the place for you. If you are prone to overreacting and allow your responses to be influenced by that, this is not the place for you. If I attack your arguments aggressively, it does not mean I am attacking you as a person or that I am out to get you. If you have a genuine desire to learn and value self-improvement, I encourage you to post even if you do not consider yourself an accomplished debater.

I admire the desire to improve. Compared to what I am capable of, my skills are rusty. I have not had the opportunity to debate in a long while. In fact, the main purpose of this blog is to use it to improve. I have had the fortune of debating others in the past whose logic was equal or superior to my own, and those experiences were amongst the most rewarding I have had in my life.

Debate is a form of mental intimacy. My most intense friendships and romantic relationships were born through debate. Generally speaking, this is easy for INTPs, other Rationals, or Thinkers of other types to comprehend, and yet ever so bewildering for the rest. The human mind can be absolutely fascinating.