mkta

TL;DR – I think the industry itself might be somewhat of a fraud, but genuine options to treat illness or discomfort that aren’t typical medicines are super beneficial for many issues.

Just like any industry, a problem is identified and a solution is brought up through the industry to fix it. In the wellness industry, the problems are often health, comfort, or human function related.

It allows for a consistent cycle of hustling new solutions, making people buy into the products, and justifying why the product needs to be used.

Rather than buying into the hustle and trying to justify it, a more natural way to find yourself in the industry is to experiment with products to truly find what works for you in a genuine way. Don’t look towards others for anything more than an option.

TL;DR – Find happiness through whichever method suits you best, but positive thoughts are not sustainable.

Positive psychology pretends to be an easy fix to all of your problems. It’s rather simple just to think positive about something, isn’t it? I don’t think it’s a bad thing to find happiness in these thoughts, but there are short-term fixes.

Correlation obviously does not equal causation – two things happening at the same time does not mean that it is because of one or the other. Positive thoughts tend to give us a sense of control, especially when mental health troubles can make us feel somewhat out of control. It feels like an instant solution to negative thoughts and helps us to find happiness, but it isn’t always effective nor sustainable.

TL;DR – What is so great about pay as you throw is that it provides multiple options for waste reduction rather than only doing its namesake – payment for waste reduction.

Unit-based pricing (PAYT) has shown to be the most environmentally and financially effective option to reduce waste. Waste reduction was down 44% percent as compared to waste reduction when plastic bag laws were implements (-.5%) or enforced mandatory recycling was in practice (-12%).

Communities who have been considering pay as you throw have only been actively utilizing two options, carts and bags with or without automated collection, to dispose of waste. Regardless of the PAYT options used in communities, it has always shown to be effective. What varies is how favorable one option over another based on its convenience.

There is most likely a feasible option for every community and country on a larger scale.

TL;DR – Gluten can cause high blood sugar which makes your body treat it the same way it treats sugar. It’s not awesome.

Gluten is processed through your body almost like sugar is. When you eat sugar, your blood sugar spikes while the sugar is stored in your body as a fuel of sorts. What’s interesting about this is that sugar is not satiating – you’ll just end up eating more.

It’s a vicious cycle. Eating gluten leads to increased insulin and cortisol releases which causes more noticeable belly fat. Without regular exercise on top of it, eating gluten can lead to metabolic damage, reduced energy, and risk for diseases.

Sure, that sounds pretty excessive to worry about, but you can balance your diet in more healthy and satiating ways no matter what!

TL;DR – Marxist theory shows how Capitalism is indeed criminogenic; and it’s really interesting.

The Marxist ideology behind capitalism being criminogenic is that crime is a “natural outgrowth of the capitalist system because the criminal justice system works for the benefits of elites and against the lower social classes.”

The basic idea here is that power is held by the Bourgeoisie and laws and governing systems reflect their interests. These institutions control the masses, prevent revolution, and keep people in a state of false consciousness.

The four main factors are as follows:
“Capitalism is criminogenic – the Capitalist system encourages criminal behaviour.
The Law – made by the Capitalist elite and tends to work in their interests.
All classes commit crimes – the crimes of the Capitalist class are more costly than street crime.
Selective Law Enforcement – The Criminal Justice system mainly concerns itself with policing and punishing the marginalised, not the wealthy, and this performs ideological functions for the elite classes.”

Directly influencing Capitalism is criminogenic as an idea, Marx acknowledges that Capitalism encourages self-interest over public duty, makes us aspire to have unattainable lifestyles, and generates massive inequality which contributes to higher crime rates.

TL;DR – It is man-made and it can be shown through the detection and attribution method of climate research.

Climate change caused by greenhouse gasses is scientifically undisputed, but this is only one part of the act. The detection and attribution method has been developed to test whether climate change variables are influenced by human activities.

By analyzing observations over long periods of time and conducting simulation experiments based on calculations, the data that is found can be compared with the observable data to consider the way humans have impacted climate change.

Natural fluctuations are also considered in these calculations and help to reach a conclusion with the collected data. Check it out, “the more the observation differs from the range of natural climate fluctuations, the more reliable the conclusion that man-made climate change influences the observation.”

TL;DR – Cultural appropriation is absolutely not fine. Those who think so have many false ideas about the act and here are some points to clear them up.

Cultural appropriation is the act of a dominant culture taking elements from a non-dominant culture without thinking about how that action can affect the non-dominant culture. It’s a complex issue and cultural appropriation doesn’t mean something just as much as it means something else.

It doesn’t mean we don’t get to share cultures. It’s enriching to do so and we wouldn’t be able to learn if we didn’t. When it’s done disrespectfully and without thinking of the people of a non-dominant culture, it contributes to oppression and harm.

On that note, cultural appropriation is not only offensive, but harmful too. This is why we need to take responsibility for our own actions and consider appropriation on a greater level. Every part of a non-dominant culture, even those that may seem trivial to you, should always be acknowledged with respect; not theft.

It also perpetuates the power imbalance between cultures – cultural appropriation does not go both ways. Think about how “whiteness” is essentially the norm in all but few places...now think about the fact that there is a norm.

TL;DR – Can Free Will be Determinist at the same time?

Free Will will exist as long as there are thinking individuals. It’s our approach to having Free Will that may determine a difference in its effect and whether it really is doing anything for us at all.

Free Will gives humans a sense of control. If we weren’t in control, would that lead us to be more open and compassionate individuals because there wasn’t another way? Does Free Will beg an explanation or will we always do something because we have Free Will?

Maybe a lack of belief in Free Will is a good thing because of this. Why should we do things because of Free Will? Aren’t we as thinking individuals better than our Free Will, if it exists? Can we see through it? My apologies for the socratic method, but these are genuine concerns of mine that may be somewhat unexplainable.

The source that got me thinking.

TL;DR – It isn't necessarily rude, but it will often make you seem self-absorbed or awkward; unless you really own it. It makes sense if you're quickly showing someone something and they are genuinely interested in it.

Playing music in public without headphones is unnecessary most of the time. If you don't have headphones, you've lost your privilege to listen to music. There is no easier way to make a joke out of yourself than listening to music awkwardly, alone, and aloud.

It's acceptable if you're truly owning it. I live in Philadelphia where a lot of people ride around on bikes, do tricks, and blast music while they're doing it. It's bloody awesome.

The only other time I'd let it slide is if something is showing something to someone they're with really quickly. They shouldn't even be allowed to play a whole song. 30 seconds max. here, people.

TL;DR – It really is such a personal thing to make your bed in the morning. Knowing that it's all ready for the next night of sleep is not only comforting, but natural for the look of your room, which is hopefully your personalized space.

Having made your bed in the morning allows you to immediately get into bed later in the day without rustling sheets to get comfortable. Instead of having to readjust everything and exhaust more energy doing so, you can more easily situate yourself to get ready to sleep.

Not only are the mental health benefits positive, but a made bed can make an entire room look more put together. Making your bed allows you to clearly see things that may actually be messy and unorganized without immediately noticing the largest thing in your room. Your cute little plaid bedspread will look amazing too.

TL;DR – It's not that we have to invest more into synthetic meat, but we have to prioritize synthetic meat over regular meat which would involve an emotional and monetary investment.

Synthetic meat is as good as regular meat already. That is coming from a 7 year vegetarian and 3 year vegan tongue, but if we're being honest, what is better about regular meat that you can't get used to with synthetic meat? The emotional investment lies here.

I don't particularly enjoy the Impossible Burger, but the Beyond Meat burger is so delicious. They are a growing company, coming out with multiple forms of their meat, but all you really need are the burgers. You can easily chop them up for ground beef or marinate and grill them to make them even more delectable. Committing to using synthetic meat can be easily done.

Where the true investment lies is in the marketing of synthetic vs. regular meat. Synthetic meat will need that little push to get people to buy it more often. It should be moved to where regular meat is in stores rather than tucked away in freezers as if it's alien food.

It's less of an investment and more of a mindset change. Prioritizing synthetic meat over regular meat should be normalized for the sake of climate change, health, and animals. It's here; we just have to bite it.

My casual perspective on this is a bit more abolitionist than reformist, if you will. I simply think it's possible to remove the bulk of regular meat from stores. Are people really that attached to it?

TL;DR – Rigid thinking can actually limit your understanding of ideas. Grey thinking is a strong way to combat complacent thought patterns.

Growing older immediately narrows our thought process to operate more rigidly. Children constantly ask why from a young age, but age begins to solidify certain ideas. It’s even shown the way tests are administered in schools. There is always a single correct answer out of the multiple choice options.

It’s almost like we’re conditioned to think rigidly. Though it may teter the line between having an opinion and genuinely acknowledging something, simply calling something good or bad shows the sense that we’re always searching for the ultimate option in thought.

Farnam Street blog states, “These slogans [an ultimate opinion on something] become substitutes for actual understanding, and it’s not as benign as it seems. The slogan isn’t just a shorthand: It replaces thinking for many people, because it’s hard to generate real understanding.”

This is where grey thinking proves its worth. The world is not black and white, obviously, but it’s easy to acknowledge and hard to put into practice. Certainty should be viewed as a limiting factor. There is a saying that “the dose makes the poison” – the opposite of a slippery slope argument. Rather than having an idea lead into multiple, solidifying an idea with the option to expand it is almost always effective. Farnam Street uses examples such as, “Capitalism is enormously productive but has many limitations” and “college has its pluses and minuses; it works for some and not for others.”

How could we possibly arrive at conclusions or solidified ideas with grey thinking? It’s about reprogramming yourself to acknowledge ideas on a continuum. You can continue to assess the importance and effects of thoughts, but immediately categorizing them fuels the detriment of a genuine thought process.

TL;DR – Rather than living in familiarity, listen to new music to find interest in your emotional response and find yourself in a musical artist’s world.

Listening to new music has become somewhat of a chore. There will always be a question of taste with any form of art you take in, but with music, it’s easy to give up the fight of finding something new to like. It may come with age; I always notice a lot of adults who never pay attention to artists they don’t know.

More than anything, music changes our brains directly. Listening to new music is effective because of our brains’ plasticity. They change and adapt with the world. Writer Jeremy D. Larson writes, “When it comes to hearing music, a network of nerves in the auditory cortex called the corticofugal network helps catalog the different patterns of music.”

If a pattern is familiar, the right amount of dopamine is released and a judgement of taste can be made. If a pattern is unfamiliar, too much dopamine is released. The same system also preserves our sense of familiarity. The emotional response we have to music can be intense.

Larson used Stravinsky’s premier of The Right of Spring to dissect our brains on music. It’s a rather rigorous ballet that has changed the scope of music’s tonality since its debut, notably influencing jazz, electronic, and experimental music greatly.

The audience threw a fit during the show...and vegetables. It was quite uncanny. They couldn’t control the dopamine response that was being triggered in their brains – the piece was just so new for the time that there was no precedent for anything like it, yet it’s commended with such generosity.

Now that a lot of musical patterns are well known and documented, listening to new music is interesting because of the subtle dopamine spikes when patterns are used. With such a variation of arrangements and production styles, it’s easy to fit a lot of patterns in songs. Knowing this makes me want to approach new artists with open arms and refuse to live in familiarity.

Larson, again, states: “The choice to listen to new music prioritizes, if for one listen only, the artist over you. It is an emotional risk to live for a moment in the abyss of someone else’s world, but this invisible exchange powers the vanguard of art, even in times of historic inertia.”

TL;DR – Libraries help new writers to be compensated, regarded for their work, and connected with readers.

I think a lot about how writers are compensated for being in a library, especially when it’s so easy to continuously discover new ones. Is it merely a platform for them to get their books out there or is there a give and take with libraries?

Author Sharon Crawford writes about Public Lending Rights Programs, “you can receive royalty payments annually. Some library systems base the amount on how many times your books are borrowed or if your book or books are in the library catalogues.”

Along with this external program, authors can reach out to libraries themselves to hold workshops and general events there to promote themselves and meet people. This results in the librarians usually ordering copies of your book ahead of time and doing a lot of the promotion work for you.

Borrowing books is a more conscious way of reading and libraries allow you to do it endlessly. It’s great for writers and no brainer for readers – especially those who care a lot about supporting their favorite writers.

TL;DR – Watermelons are not the best fruit because avocados are the best fruit.

What makes avocados so good is their ability to be savory and sweet at the same time. I’ve used them to make both brownies and soup! They’re originally called alligator pears – I never thought that pears would be a clear comparison for them, but they definitely are!

Avocados are extremely good for you. They are full of healthy fats that benefit your skin, hair, and digestion – they help you burn fat and reduce the risk of heart disease too. They are known to reduce inflammation and are considered a medicine of sorts.

The fruit’s high potassium, magnesium, glutathione, and vitamin K, C, and E content regulates blood pressure, blood sugar, and protects against certain cancers.

Avocado’s are even fun to pick and cut. I love to slice mine into little cubes and let the pieces fall over a salad. Also, try to grow an avocado plant with the seed. It won’t produce avocados in most climates, but it looks adorable!

There are multiple perspectives to acknowledge and ways to argue that water is, indeed, not wet. It technically can’t be defined as wet because wetness is named through a sensation.

Writer Jacqueline Castles said, “Water isn’t wet. Wetness is a description of our experience of water; what happens to us when we come into contact with water in such a way that it impinges on our state of being. We, or our possessions, ‘get wet’.” This is a great example of the general experience of wetness with a reference to the semantics of the word.

Writers Chris and Shevvy Ould said, “Have you ever noticed that you can't feel wetness if you hold your hand perfectly still while it is submerged, or that a drop of water on the skin doesn't feel wet?”

Writer Ewan Sweeney from a post on debate.org said, “The reason it feels as it feels when water touches the skin is actually a complex electro-chemical reaction which works at amazing speeds. The sensory inputs are a combination of your body’s pH at that moment, the water’s pH, your body’s temperature at that moment, the water’s temperature, the atmospheric pressure, and molecular polarity.”

TL;DR – Physical sales continue to benefit the media as it provides a tangible and intentional form for it and overall, yields more for the media creators economically.

In the music industry, digital media has not surpassed physical media. Streaming services have completely changed the landscape for owning said media, but anyone who is still buying music will most likely choose their physical copies of albums over their digital counterparts.

Digital has a greater negative effect than physical on audio media. Certain file types compress the audio and make it sound quite different than its physical form – which have waveforms literally pressed into vinyl records or magnetized onto tape.

More than anything, this is an economic discussion. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) reported that downloads fell by almost 25% in 2017 and are almost worth less than $1 billion in total. Some other stats:

“Track sales and album sales are the two major kinds of downloads, and both lost a lot of ground in 2017, with single and song sales suffering the worst. Purchases of individual tunes dropped over 25% and Americans bought 553.5 million songs. Digital album sales fell considerably as well, though they’re holding slightly better than individual tracks. The field shrunk by 22% from the year prior, and in 2017, music lovers in the U.S. bought just over 66 million digital records, which is down from just over 85 million in 2016. Digital album sales totaled almost $624 million last year, while songs brought in $650 million, as albums sell for a much higher price.”

Through all of this, vinyl sales continue to increase and all forms of physical purchases added up to $1.5 billion in the U.S. during 2017. Overall, digital media, audio specifically, is certainly falling economically and major corporations are benefiting from it rather than the media itself. Physical sales continue to benefit the media as it provides a tangible and intentional form for it and overall, yields more for the media creators economically.

TL;DR – Dog breeding is a problem because breeders lie, the AKC doesn’t do their job, and overpopulation will never end.

The argument that there are plenty of dogs living in shelters and that it is completely unnecessary to buy a dog from a breeder because of this will always hold true. The more dogs there are without homes, the more of a problem it is to bring dogs into the world who are not guaranteed a stable one.

Breeders perpetuate the myth that you will be getting a superior pet when you buy a purebred dog from them rather than adopting from a shelter. Breeding is in fact a business and that is the ultimate selling point – a lie. Purebred dogs may be able to avoid health issues in special cases, but it really is dependent on the dog. There is no hard evidence against adopting from a shelter for health related reasons and ironically, at least 25% of dogs in shelters are purebred anyway.

The American Kennel Club (AKC) is regarded as the authority for breeding dogs and purebred standards, but a lot of their certifications even show to be lenient with breeders’ “puppy-mill like conditions.” Even with all of their certifications, a lot of breeders prove to be irresponsible and use reckless breeding practices that cause abnormalities while the AKC isn’t even held responsible.

Though breeders could love their dogs the same way shelter volunteers do, many continue the practice without addressing the issue of overpopulation. Euthanization should be enough of an argument against breeding for anyone.

TL;DR – The effect tourism has on the environment, an area, and their people is difficult to imagine. Travelling can be an extremely personal thing, but becoming more mindful of its effect on a greater scale is important if you want to continue to reap the benefits of it.

Ecotourism can be defined as, “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of the local people, and involves interpretation and education.” Not only do tourists come to places to explore, learn, and enjoy life there for themselves, but they should also be responsible to better life for local people, conserve the environment, and influence a positive economic impact.

The negative effects of tourism can change an area greatly through eventual gentrification, increased traffic, and a diminishing effect on the local environment and culture. Travel companies have even used ecotourism as a term to appeal to more environmentally conscious tourists while not actually expressing its best interests.

If ecotourism was genuinely practiced, certain areas might already be past the point of it being effective merely because it has become so normalized to travel for the opposite reasons. It could end up just making these areas even more overpopulated.

Regardless, some easy ways to implement ecotourism that may not promote the negative effects include staying in one place for an extended period of time rather than continuously travelling, always supporting local businesses, and researching companies and endeavors you could lend a hand to while you’re there.

It’s easy to align ourselves with a certain “aesthetic.” This can be any sort of categorization of what you like, how you dress, and how you act. “Aesthetics” are an entirely limiting label.

It seems that people often abide by “aesthetics” to have a sense of themselves from others’ perspectives. Social media even forces them onto people to certain extent – branding your account through something as simple as editing your photos in a certain way contributes to the perception of an aesthetic.

It’s unnatural and unsustainable, especially with the evolution of culture. It becomes stressful when you find yourself somewhat locked into an “aesthetic” even if you don’t identify with it. Of course, be yourself no matter what, but “aesthetics” put unnecessary weight on that concept.

Autumn Hutson states in the source below, “Allowing ourselves to fluctuate and change — to be humans rather than brands or hollow aesthetics — is probably the most interesting style choice we could make nowadays. We’re all multifaceted and ever-evolving, especially when we’re young. Perhaps embracing this nature could unleash a new level of creativity within internet culture.”

https://autumnj-hutson.medium.com/aesthetics-should-go-out-of-style-eac37f1ce93e

Roger McNamee was Mark Zuckerberg's early mentor and a previous investor in Facebook, but has now changed perspectives to become a social media critic and eventually wrote Zucked. The use of data mining, AI, and social media platforms' vision to be news outlets are the reasons why social media has a "pervasive influence on culture and politics." My points are all drawn from a discussion with McNamee.

Social media is manipulative to the average person's understanding of politics and causes them to lose interest in democracy because news media is imposed on us by these platforms. It has to be remembered that social media platforms are following a business model for engagement.

News exists throughout these platforms regardless, but to truly learn about politics involves doing genuine research and considering points for yourself. That's where an effective democracy can be achieved. Without educating yourself about what is ingrained into the political landscape, you're encouraged to follow the feed.

https://lithub.com/roger-mcnamee-on-the-incompatibility-of-social-media-and-democracy/

In his poem “In Memoriam A.H.H.,” Alfred, Lord Tennyson wrote:
I hold it true, whate’er befall;
/
I feel it when I sorrow most;
/
‘Tis better to have loved and lost
/
Than never to have loved at all.

The poem is an elegy about grieving the loss of a close friend and taken out of context, it shows that love spans massively. To uncover the mystery proposed and the question implied in this statement, I want to leave the statement in the context of the poem. The poem goes on for 131 lines and was written over many years. Not only does it show a development of Tennyson’s emotions, but it shows his exploration of them.

While the poem was being written in smaller cantos, Tennyson thought he couldn’t accurately express his emotions. There is an obvious focus on the structure of the poem, especially in Canto 27 (the one above!). Rhymes at the end of the first and last line with near rhymes in the middle two lines. Okay, sorry for the fluff.

What I’m getting at here is that the poem was written as a potential consolation for Tennyson’s own self and readers are meant to acknowledge it on these terms. It’s difficult to translate – that is, the statement and personal grief as a whole. The source below doesn’t get into Canto 27, but it grapples with love and loss as a concept throughout the poem and states, “In fact, it might even be argued that this is one of the poem’s merits: the reader is not made to feel a part of Tennyson’s grief, merely a witness, forced to contemplate the incomprehensibility of individual human consciousness…”

“It is better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all” is an example of the “incomprehensibility of individual human consciousness.” There’s a certain passivity to the statement and it’s hard to empathize with, but also hard to agree or disagree with because it doesn’t feel complete. It implies loss no matter what – the experience of losing with love or losing love. “At all” though? Really? It’s nearly unimaginable.

Happy Choosing!

https://thegsaljournal.com/2020/05/19/the-articulation-of-grief-in-in-memoriam-a-h-h/

Latin is taught to be read rather than spoken. That’s how my Latin class in high school was and just so happens to be what the source below says too. The language is about learning the grammatical rules rather than using it in everyday speech. Being that it’s a dead language, it’s very easy to pick it up when approaching it from this perspective. On that note, it’s an extremely utilitarian language.

Latin literature holds dense information that can be interpreted in so many ways based on your understanding of the language. It’s a whole new sector of literature that can directly lead into English literature. What appears to be useless can be a whole new set of tools to those who are rigorous and imaginative in their reading and studies.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/may/24/latin-in-schools

TL;DR – It feels like there is an encouragement to make posts presentable and upbeat even with information that should be very deliberate. Authenticity lives at both ends – extremely deliberate posts or extremely personal posts.

Instagram is an inherently positive app. Even double tapping a post to like it is marked by the little heart that pops up symbolizing interest, love, and devotion to an account. Posts tend to go viral because of this spreading of positivity. It’s visually motivated, so it’s easy to get caught up in the presentation of your posts and how you make them appealing. I think a lot about the way this can hide facts and meaning inadvertently though!

When a lot of the recent social justice protests started, Instagram was full of infographics, facts, and evidence to inform people about these situations. I found myself confused when some of the posts I saw were not very deliberate with their information and were more for the look and design. It was pointless to me.

It feels like there is an encouragement to make posts extremely presentable and upbeat even with information that should be very deliberate. I definitely enjoy my fair share of art and design, but with the amount of power Instagram has, it should be used as more than a fun loving platform. If not, then I personally love the idea of making your Instagram account so personal to you that it’s basically only a portfolio or a journal of sorts. I think authenticity lives at both ends.

What Instagram is beginning to foster is a certain hostility towards some posts (you can even call me out on my obvious hypocrisy here) and I think that’s what’s going to make it die if it eventually comes to that. It’s no longer social, but rather maintains a hierarchy of interests. This is a mixed argument for me because I really believe Instagram has reached wonderful heights for social media over the years and there is a lot of personality in its upbeat nature, but there is an undertone of vulnerability in it that is emphasized by the misrepresentation of ideas that simply can’t be taken any differently.

TL;DR – It isn't productive to outline a piece of writing because it merely protects us from the fear of uncertainty and hinders discovery and natural thoughts in the writing process.

Of course it is personal preference, but it isn't productive to outline a story, poem, or whatever piece of writing you're working on. Writing is art and should not fit a certain prescription. That isn't to say that art should never be planned out, but writing, to me, is the active translation of thoughts into words. It should feel natural. By making an outline, the translation is no longer natural – it's a translation of thoughts that have already been realized to be an outline, not a finished piece.

Getting to a finished piece doesn't have to happen right away either. Workshopping is such an important step of the writing process because it allows your work to see the light of day despite what state it's in. That little bit of clarity can transform your piece from good to great.

For a piece of writing to be engaging and surprising, I believe that it can't be planned. Planning may make you realize that your ideas can't be fully realized, but why allow planning to show you that? Write for the sake of writing. Write for the sake of creating.

You can discover so much during the process of writing. You can question all that you discover, and guess what? You can always go back to rewrite it. If anything, allow your first draft to be your outline.

I want to conclude this with considering the difference between planning and doing. Planning can easily deceive us into thinking we're in control when it's really just a form of procrastination. It's often out of fear of uncertainty that we feel planning is necessary.

On the topic of planning for goals, journalist Oliver Burkeman writes, "What motivates our investment in goals and planning for the future, much of the time, isn’t any sober recognition of the virtues of preparation and looking ahead. Rather, it’s something much more emotional: how deeply uncomfortable we are made by feelings of uncertainty. Faced with the anxiety of not knowing what the future holds, we invest ever more fiercely in our preferred vision of that future — not because it will help us achieve it, but because it helps rid us of feelings of uncertainty in the present."

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/02/05/oliver-burkeman-antidote-plans-uncertainty/

It definitely should be and it's extremely easy to see how it's not. Even when information is presented in a different way – one that might be more accessible, such as a video – certain aspects can change the experience for many including: difficult words, complicated directions, lack of captions or distracting ones, or assistive technology that is completely incompatible with standard services.

Accessibility should be the new line of thinking for the future of technology and public services. I believe it is becoming so – it's getting easier to use an iPhone even when it couldn't be easier for the general population, but active steps should always be taken.

https://www.deque.com/blog/an-introductory-guide-to-understanding-cognitive-disabilities/

Texting should be closer to speaking than to writing. Though you don’t give off the same types of social cues through texts, periods are a writing-specific device and simply do not translate well in texts. Emails should have periods in them, but texting is so much more informal!

Psychologists at Binghamton University in New York studied the use of periods in texts and concluded that texting is an activity that happens rapidly back and forth. Periods create pauses and are nowhere close to an emotion-like social cue such as an emoji or multiple letters to signify stresses on certain parts of words.

The pause signified by a period creates an unnecessary silence in the conversation. Over text, silence occurs naturally when you hit send and wait for a response. Silence is already somewhat of a barrier in that case and shouldn’t be implied any more than it already is.

Just having this (online) conversation shows why periods shouldn’t be in texts. It creates an unnecessary worry in an activity that should be making communication easier and more enjoyable. We shouldn’t have to think about it.

https://www.thoughtco.com/leave-period-out-of-text-messages-4022990

Emotions are experienced in similar ways to a point of being predictable no matter what someone's gender or culture is. A psychology professor at the University of British Columbia stated, "There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that for most emotions, we have them because we evolved to have them. They’re functional, they’re adaptive, and essentially they help us survive and reproduce.”

Emotions are here to guide and direct our actions while even helping us weigh potential outcomes extremely rationally and logically. They are integral to decision making. The belief that emotions are irrational actually seems dangerous.

Emotions, and therefore emotional strength, should be valued instead of pushed away. Feeling things helps to provide you a perspective on situations and continue your growth through them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/06/emotions-arent-irrational/592486/

The cold is actually the deadliest weather pattern of the two according to epidemiologists. More specifically, moderately cold temperatures are more deadly than freezing temperatures and warm temperatures. It kills 20 times more than the heat.

What the study mentioned in the source below concludes is that people are more likely to die from any cause in the cold than the heat and overall, cold weather increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes due to the atmosphere’s pressure on the body.

In that case, potentially dying of cold would be much better because there is also the potential to die from a heart attack or stroke instead of freezing to death. Not saying it would be better or worse to die that way, but at least it presents the option not to die directly because of the temperature.

https://weather.com/health/news/cold-deadliest-weather-pattern-study-finds

TL;DR – Being a rebel is almost always for the sake of something else and it is necessary to bring you closer to change. Rebellion can be viewed as the active process of change.

Rebellion doesn’t have to be on a massive scale. It’s rooted in certain behaviors, norms, and conditions in the interest of change. George Orwell writes in 1984, “Until they become conscious, they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled, they cannot become conscious.”

Conceptually, rebellion is never complacent, but it’s easy to take on a rebellious attitude without action. Rebellion’s necessity is clear through the motivation for even the most minor changes and there are plenty of ways to rebel – alternatives living, street activism, breaking from family traditions, etc. All can lead to change of any level.

As an allegory of sorts and to show that rebellion even exists in non-human nature, the ‘peepal tree’ (native to India) has roots that grow outwards to eventually break down the structure it rests on. The weed is a rebel in itself; starting wherever it ends up, spreading, and eventually breaking down the structures around it in its growth.

https://www.elephantjournal.com/2021/02/the-power-of-a-rebel-3-ways-to-start-and-scale-revolutions-sukriti-chhopra/

TL;DR – They seem to undermine the value of a physical illustration, but they are not a threat.

Digital art developed with an adherence to the traditions of physical art, but not all of them. It's really great for accessibility if you have access to technology in the first place. I believe that there should always be a question of permanence with any digital art.

I acquaint this with recording music on tape vs. digitally. With tape, not only do you get a physical recording of music that you can hold in your hands, but it gives the music a sense of permanence. Digitally recorded tracks can be deleted in a digital audio workstation in a second.

As a craft, illustration begs the feeling of holding an illustration in your hands or looking at it on a wall. The texture of drawing utensil, slight variations of the piece's color in different lighting, and the way it's hung on the wall are certain aspects of permanence in an illustration that digital pieces just would be able to bring across.

TL;DR – Literature has many distinguishing sectors that can be translated as a reflection of life.

Literature, stories, and language developed most of what we know about the world today. It is the way to communicate reflections of and on the world – consistently providing thought and insight to those who read.

Cave paintings explained a way of life. Religious texts essentially founded religion. Philosophy texts acknowledge human values. Revolutionary texts can change the course of action for a political landscape. Now more than ever, literature is inherent to our lives. Anything from song lyrics to advertising copy can be considered literature. Words reflect, but only translate this reflection and it leaves the reader to experience it as whatever they want it to be – life, fiction, a great coffee table book, etc.

https://thoughtcatalog.com/angelo-lorenzo/2014/03/literature-is-powerful-literature-defines-humanity/

TL;DR – The death penalty is hypocritical, unethical, and illogical based on the reasons why criminals are punished.

David Swanton writes in the source below, “Criminologists consider that the major reasons for criminal penalties are rehabilitation (reforming the prisoner to be a better citizen), incapacitation (preventing the prisoner from committing other crimes), deterrence (discouraging the prisoner and others from further crime) and retribution (society punishing the prisoner as vengeance for a criminal act).”

Deterrence and retribution are the only solidified reasons out of the four that the death penalty would directly serve without jail sentences – both are somewhat biased. Scientifically, the criminal mind thinks differently and without considering that death could potentially be a punishment for them. It does not seem like anything deters criminal activity that would call for the death penalty, unfortunately. Punishment is not a universal thing and, in my opinion, death will never be an unbiased punishment in terms of retributions.

https://www.ethicalrights.com/articles/media/136-death-penalty-is-morally-unacceptable

TL;DR – Though it's cloudy in the moment, nostalgia can provide a lot of clarity and reflection in the digital age.

In the late 1800s, Russian physicists recommended that those who showed “symptoms” of nostalgia should be buried alive. The fleeting moment that we are all too familiar with today was treated like a disease at one point in history. Once it became known through philosophy and theory, nostalgia took an entirely different form – it was considered less of an individual condition and more so a disordered pattern of thought in regards to being homesick.

Nietzsche stated in The Birth of Tragedy: “One is no longer home anywhere, so in the end one longs to be back where one can somehow be at home because it is the only place where one would wish to be at home.” It acknowledged nostalgia as a perspective that comes from an outside force. Writer David Berry mentions, it’s a “reaction to the modern condition.”

Where I believe nostalgia becomes effective is in considering the modern implication of it. Rather than referring to homesickness that brings you back to a place, the general consensus seems to be that nostalgia brings you back to a time. It’s especially great now because we are so digitally in-tune that having a fleeting moment of feeling is rather refreshing even if technology helps to get us there. Berry notes, “As artifacts and representations of the past have become easier to access, nostalgia has gradually become a more active process.”

https://thewalrus.ca/why-nostalgia-is-our-new-normal/

TL;DR – Privacy laws should better represent those who could potentially have their privacy breached instead of giving platforms a pass as long as they ask for consent.

There is a short word standing between more effective privacy laws and what we have now. Instead of having the ‘right to privacy,’ lawmakers have allowed people a ‘right of privacy.’ We have a choice to give consent or not for platforms to use our faces from photos, etc. – hence the prompts that often come up.

The law seems to give platforms and companies more control over the privacy of our faces. There was no talk of privacy rights before 1890 when two Harvard Law scholars, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, wrote a Harvard Law Review article titled, “The Right to Privacy.”

The article was a response to Kodak's unleashing of the portable camera in 1888. It stated, “instantaneous photographs…invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life.” To a certain extent, this is still true today and it’s exemplified by new technology.

It might not be necessary to give consent to your friend taking a photo of you, but every time you unlock your iPhone with Face ID, you're giving up a part of yourself to who knows what. That should be in our control without sacrificing the convenience of a function like that.

In efforts to keep this short, check out the source below for some wonderful information on Abigail Roberson’s famous case that was the first to bring up the question of privacy rights in court.

https://gizmodo.com/how-a-19th-century-teenager-sparked-a-battle-over-who-o-1829572319

TL;DR – Atheists tend to have antagonistic beliefs that contradict their reasoning for being an atheist.

No matter what, all views on religion, spirituality, and God should be recognized and approached willingly and diligently. I’ve noticed atheists to be the ones who are most likely to shut out any views on religion just for the sake of doing so, therefore shutting themselves out. To make sure this isn’t entirely personal, I’ll be referencing the source below closely.

Writer Matthew Prince acknowledges two broad reasons for atheists being atheists: personal reasons – those applicable to experiences and the greater world alike – and evidence-based reasons that rely on the lack of evidence.

Personal reasons are somewhat negotiable as they are, indeed, personal. This could be because of a horrible experience where the individual couldn’t or didn’t want to find hope in religion. There is also the mindset that the world will always have evil in it regardless, so how could there be a god? Even with this ‘doomer’ mindset, if you will, it still makes sense to acknowledge faith.

Those with a ‘doomer’ mindset are still putting their faith into something, yet atheists tend to abide by a lack of faith. It’s easy for humans to be biased for the lack of something attributing to the absence of something. If someone is an atheist for evidence-based reasons, the same reasoning is still applicable – “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”

Why don’t atheists lean more towards agnosticism and acknowledge the unknown? Even if some atheists still do this, they would even align greatly with religious individuals who also acknowledge the existence of god with faith in the unknown. Yet, their beliefs seem to remain antagonistic to religion, spirituality, and God.

https://medium.com/the-apeiron-blog/why-nobody-should-be-an-atheist-1df06461d504

TL;DR – Communicating with gender neutral terms ensures clarity and inclusivity. Most terms are so pointlessly written and spoken with masculine terms.

It seems almost natural that most men will write and speak on general terms about people and resort to using he/him pronouns while it’s vice versa for women and non-binary individuals. The US DOI says that, “All men are created equal,” and it’s lame for that. The disconnect is clear to us now. Despite clarity’s sake, speaking so specific in these terms feels exclusionary before anything nowadays.

Even man-made takes form with ‘man’ while semantics say that it has nothing to do with men. Man as a Latin root means ‘hand’ which is ungendered and universal in itself, but it maintains itself as the opposite. There’s just no reason not to use any alternatives like person, human, people, one, humanity, the human race, humankind, individual. I’m not saying to change the English language, though it would be a fun experiment in itself.

Professions are mostly communicated as masculine too – postman, councilman, cameraman. Why have we not achieved the step of normalizing postal person, council member, and camera operator?

Lipika Sahu finished off the source below with, “There is no harm in using the option [he/him, she/her]. Just that when this pops up quite many times, it breaks the flow of the story [in regards to writing].” This extends to speaking as well.

https://writingcooperative.com/all-men-are-created-equal-what-about-women-a0ac2efd957

TL;DR – Making coffee is quite a scientific process and freshly grinding your beans will help to make your cup ‘o joe the best it can be. Multiple variables in the brew process could affect the quality of your coffee – freshly ground beans make an important difference.

Coffee beans go through a long roasting process that is calculated for the type of coffee, origin, and flavor goals. There is a series of chemical reactions that take place and properly storing and grinding beans helps to make sure that only the necessary ones happen.

As soon as you grind coffee, it oxidizes and alters the flavor. Coffee beans have oils in them that are essential to their quality, so oxidation allows the moisture in the air to dissolve the water soluble oils instead of having them contribute to your brew.

CO2 is important to the aroma and taste of coffee – it also explains the crema on top of espresso that eventually disappears after it sits for too long. It escapes from coffee beans very fast after grinding them. Ever try to make a decent shot of espresso with the classic, pre-ground, red canister Folgers? It does not work.

Grinding coffee makes it cover more surface area. Beans are easier to store and pre-grinding makes the aforementioned processes happen tremendously faster. Along with scientifically perfecting your brew, not having pre-ground beans gives you further control over your grind size.

https://soloespresso.net/fresh-ground-coffee/

A class that is deliberately focused on and influenced by what's presented in the syllabus by a professor will always be an effective way for a student to learn. A syllabus for a class allows for an immediate breakdown of the material they will be learning in order to better their intentions in taking the class.

If a student builds their own syllabus, I would immediately call that an independent study. Allowing students to pursue independent studies more often should be a main focus in education, but most students will still need guidance from an advisor of sorts.

TL;DR – Surfing is pretty great – maybe not the best, but certainly beneficial for you as a person and adventurer!

Surfacing forces you to be practical. Thinking fast to find the safest course while you're riding a wave is certainly important, but just choosing a wave that is worth going for after you've spent time and energy getting out far enough takes a certain mindset. Not to mention finding your way back to the sand.

Spending so much time waiting for a wave in the water puts you in a potentially terrifying place and it's freeing to confront the unknown. You don't know what might be lurking below you or if you're on the wave that will throw you into a wipeout. It builds your courage and determination!

Health wise, if you're surfing on a sunny day, you're getting more than an adequate dose of vitamin D. Balancing on a board is a skill in itself that is physically taxing for the average person. For your mental health, recognizing how beautiful the edge of the coast is while you're out in the ocean can bring so much clarity and calmness into your life.

https://surfd.com/2015/08/10-reasons-why-surfing-makes-you-a-better-person/

TL;DR – Net neutrality for the internet gives way to opportunistic competition for companies that we, as consumers, get to enjoy freely because of net neutrality.

The FCC's reclassification of broadband internet as a telecommunication service showed an even more inherent need for net neutrality, but they have since changed their mind. Essentially, ISPs need to be limited in their description against service providers.

AOL was once a monopoly in the sense that they provided internet access as well as email and news. Broadband is now geographically distinguished with little competition in the US – as opposed to the UK having many providers for internet in specific areas based on shared signals.

A main source of interference that is combated with net neutrality comes from cable companies against companies attempting to reach customers. Companies without a partnership or service with the cable company are at a disadvantage. Free speech plays a strong role in this especially with political groups trying to spread word without being limited by cable companies.

For personal context, a strong example of net neutrality is shown through streaming services. With so many of them (Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video, HBO), users have a choice to use whichever they want. Without net neutrality, it is possible for ISPs to slow down their sites and direct consumers elsewhere.

https://www.law.nyu.edu/news/ideas/christopher-jon-sprigman-net-neutrality-explained

TL;DR – Animal testing is unreliable, wasteful, and dangerous. In what way can an animal's reaction be a proper representation of the potentially negative effects of products and drugs on humans?

Animals' reactions are thought to show promising results, mostly based on anecdotal evidence. The diseases that pharmaceuticals are meant to treat are often artificially induced which makes the evidence even more unreliable. High-risk conditions like cancer, psychiatric disorders, and heart and neurology issues have animal tested-drug success rates of only 5%, 6%, 7%, and 8% respectively.

A well-known toxicologist who advocates for non-animal testing developments, Dr. Thomas Hartung, made clear that the “costs and duration of toxicological studies are clearly prohibitive to satisfy societal safety needs." New approaches with cell-based models could save time, resources, and worries for safety. Instead, animal testing is done slowly while a mass of data is collected that is not always predicative of human effects.

Animals simply do not contract the same diseases in the same way humans do, so this evidence will never be entirely accurate. Some drugs let out onto the market have even shown to be extremely dangerous. A notable example is the arthritis drug Vioxx, which was tested on six animal species and estimated to have caused 320,000 heart attacks and strokes and 140,000 deaths worldwide.

Why continue cruel and unethical testing with such little payoff? And this is only on the pharmaceutical side! Think about how many toiletries, cleaning products, and chemicals also need to be tested.

https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/arguments-against-animal-testing

https://www.navs.org/five-reasons-end-animal-testing/#.YCbO-HdKi-s

https://thetylt.com/culture/animal-testing-ban

TL;DR – Panpsychism on an extremely fundamental level is related to the exploration of consciousness. Consciousness is the unification of these elements – balanced between perception and the natural world.

Consciousness is the mechanism of life in its most recognizable form, but it is not directly representative of yourself. I would argue that general thought is more reflective of the self. To not confuse consciousness and your experience of life may approach the concepts necessary to distinguish what consciousness is.

Panpsychism shows an interesting view for this. It’s described as “the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world.” The closest defining aspect of consciousness I can come up with would be panpsychism on an extremely small level. Somehow, the world (or whatever you want to call this) is being experienced and shared, but not through what we refer to as the “self.”

All aspects of humans, down to the atoms, are a part of this. Clearly, panpsychism does not imply that inanimate objects are conscious. The unified nature of matter is an act of consciousness. Nautilus writer Annaka Harris states, “Consciousness could persist as is, while the character and content changes depending on the arrangement of the specific matter in question.”

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy mentions physicalism – the unified nature of the world without considering consciousness – and dualism – the separation of mind and matter – to make up panpsychism. Consciousness can be found balanced between the natural world and perception. Quoting from Harris again, “Think of consciousness like spacetime – a fundamental field that’s everywhere.”

https://nautil.us/issue/82/panpsychism/consciousness-isnt-self_centered

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

TL;DR – Poetry needs syntax to function. Hearing a poem proves the association between words to be poetic.

Poetry has always been about words. So much has changed from the time of metaphysical poets and their conceits to the current wave of direct and postmodern poetry. Throughout this change, the lure to the words on the page has become more personal. Poetry is most often read quietly to yourself. I believe the nature of poetry is the work between the words on the page.

Syntax takes plenty of precedence here, but the meaning and intention for understanding in a poem should be clear through words and their sound. Rhetorical devices are extremely important, but deliberately obscuring a poem for the sake of mystery does not make it more interesting. In reference to younger poets, poet Matthew Zapruder acknowledges, “The so-called effect of their poems relies on hidden meaning, keeping something away from the reader.”

Hearing poetry helps to discern meaning and intermingling of the words. To restate, poetry is made by the words. Writer Josephine Hart notes that, “Poetry, this trinity of sound, sense and sensibility, to me, gives voice to experience in a way like no other literary art form,” and quotes W.B. Yeats saying that he spent his life "clearing out of poetry every phrase written for the eye, and bringing back to syntax, that is for ear alone.”

Relying on words and their sound in poetry presents enough meaning in itself. Zapruder put it really well: “Coming upon a word, having it rise up out of the preconscious, intuitive dream-state and into the poem, either to begin or somewhere along the way or even, blissfully, at the end, is the special reward of being a poet, and a reader of poetry.” Allowing yourself to hear a poem bridges the experience of reading it with your acknowledgement of its poetics.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/books/review/understanding-poetry-is-more-straightforward-than-you-think.html

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2006/oct/31/thespokenwordwhypoetrysho

TL;DR – Spotify and Apple Music both have shady practices as far as paying musicians goes, but Spotify has been especially weird with privacy and undervaluing art.

As a Spotify user myself, I agree with everything you've mentioned. They win it by a landslide as far as accessibility and motivation for music consumption goes. Unfortunately, the music industry student in me has to come out even though no one asked for it.

In recent news, Spotify has secured a patent that will monitor their users to an unbelievable amount. The patent is for their product categorized by "Identification of taste attributes from an audio signal" with the goal to "gauge listeners' 'emotional state, gender, age, or accent,' in order to recommend new music." It's overwhelming and terrifying to read this.

The article below continues by addressing how Spotify doesn't want to give users the "tedious" step of providing this information consensually. For an app that does such a great job at providing a platform to discover new music, why is the company trying to make something out of these arbitrary factors – especially a listener's emotional state and accent? How could that gauge a listener's music taste based on their own taste?

It's manipulative at best. They put users in this wonderful state of consistent and personal music discovery and now they'll take advantage of who they are.

Now from a musician's standpoint – Spotify is actually worse than Apple Music at paying a fair share to their artists. They pay $3.18 per 1000 streams after hitting 336,842 plays per month as opposed to Apple Music's $5.60 per 1000 streams after hitting 200,272 plays per month. The modern music industry is structured in this horrid way with streaming at the forefront of it; it's going to take a lot of change for royalties to be good for all artists in the first place, but Apple Music is already miles ahead.

Spotify even wants to offer to boost artists' algorithm placement for reduced royalty rates. If that doesn't speak to the way art is valued so much less than technology, I don't know what does. Spotify is the worst and so is Apple Music to be fair, but I haven't heard of Apple Music's dark plan for music listening domination yet.

https://consequenceofsound.net/2021/01/spotify-patent-monitor-users-speech/
https://www.soundmaximum.com/music-streaming-rates/
https://consequenceofsound.net/2020/11/spotify-artist-algorithm-reduced-royalties/

TL;DR – Snowboarding is better than skiing for the boots, ease of carry, developed techniques, and uniqueness.

I have dedicated 12 years of my life to snowboarding and 7 to skiing (there were seasons where I did both while learning how to snowboard) and I would not trade a snowboard attached to my feet for more than the time it takes for me to remember how much of a pain it is to ski.

Let us start with the morning of a day on the mountain. Getting ready for snowboarding is so much easier than preparing to ski and that is mostly due to the boots. Ski boots are made of heavy plastic and, from what I can remember, can not be more uncomfortable to walk in and wear. I can drive to the mountain in my snowboard boots – I would advise against it in ski boots.

Not only are they hard to walk in, but they are potentially unsafe due to how easy it is to slip and fall in them before even getting on a lift. Avoiding the extra time spent changing into ski boots when you get to the mountain would save the patience of everyone in your group and yourself from breaking your neck walking on the lodge's stairs.

So if they are changing into boots at the mountain, skiers have to carry both their boots and their skis. I remember my dad telling me that doing so is initiation for the day. Now, I tell him that when I'm only carrying my snowboard and he's struggling on the walk from the car.

How on Earth do you carry skis anyway? They're so thin with almost nothing to hold on to. Balancing them on your shoulder looks really cool, I'll admit it, but go ahead and try your best.

In the rare case that snowboarders have to unstrap and walk in the middle of a trail, they can take their time and enjoy the scenery. Most terrain park riders I see will actually walk back up the mountain for the ease and fun of it. Unstrapping for a lift ride offers the chance to relax at least one of your legs. Taking bindings on and off takes such a short amount of time and it's basically second nature (to me).

Riding a snowboard is mostly about learning the maneuvers and weight distribution techniques that will help you move across flats and heavy powder. I found that I've definitely developed my own style while I ride through identifying this. It feels extremely personal in that sense. This isn't to discredit skiing's personality, but for something so new (snowboarding was developed in the 1960s) it's really unique. Why go forward if you can go sideways?

Minimalism is an overly romanticized trend that survives through condescension. The notion that a minimalist lives for the sake of personal growth and enjoyment hides the fact that they are directing energy towards their image.

Chelsea Fagan states in the source below, “It’s all about spending an incredible amount of time and attention to look as if you hadn’t thought about it at all.” She uses the term “conspicuous consumption” to acknowledge that minimalists think in terms of what they have. Just because they are buying less does not mean that they are not living an average consumerist lifestyle. It is a mask.

Finding the ultimate items for yourself that bring you the most joy is a task that calls for excessive shopping and comparison. Minimalists seem to always own the most expensive versions of quite normal items. Fagan also notes, “It’s a way of aping the connotations of simplicity and even, to a degree, asceticism, without actually having to give up those sweet, sweet class signifiers.” Sure, you might have less, but you are still living above your own means.

Taking on a minimalist lifestyle is a privilege that continues to go against everything the lifestyle stands for.
Also: https://twitter.com/2nickels/status/1353893744148439041?s=20

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/04/minimalism-conspicuous-consumption-class

I am more interested in documenting the responses to this rather than forming a solid argument!

Opinions are extremely fickle, despite the size of your metaphorical walls, and could be changed by another opinion or objective truth at any moment. An opinion backed up by significant evidence is most definitely more powerful than one that is not.

There is no baseline for an opinion besides something that you believe to be true at the time you express it. Undermining opinions even further, if someone doesn’t understand an opinion on the same level as the person holding it, what would make the opinion matter? It’s just hot air at that point.

On a larger level, free speech is suppressed every day. Opinions that are working towards the greater good are often pushed away swiftly. I do wish all opinions did matter – combating the bad ones seems obvious, but there is no construct or method to help.

It is not pointless to define "human nature," or at least piece it together. Human nature attempts to consider aspects of history while continuing to transcend time. Denying that overlooks the purpose of reason and knowledge – I believe it to be growing in every way possible overtime and knowing why.

Defining human nature is an act of the times. Anything from Plato to the Enlightenment and modern science comes to mind here. The point of acknowledging human nature today is to appreciate these claims throughout history. The greatest issue becomes misusing a perspective stemming from these claims.

Maybe defining it overall is somewhat pointless when trapped in the loop of blame and defeat based on such claims, but human nature continues by expanding our view. Clearly, humans are more than they are claimed to be and the source below quotes Henry Miller saying, "Man has demonstrated he is master of everything – except his own nature.” I read this quote as positive and motivational. The reason and questioning that goes into defining human nature is what reveals humans to be more than their due diligence and assumptions.

I do 100% agree with that last sentence. Human nature is rooted in experience.

http://w3.salemstate.edu/~hbenne/pdfs/reflections.pdf

This touches on a comparison I have always seemed to have a hard time considering for myself – fine art vs. illustrations/sketches/etc. The avenue I'll take here is that visual art is connected with and perceived by a viewer in two identifiable ways; through an illustrative and/or personal connection.

I believe your argument is highlighting the illustrative connection an average viewer can have to art, but only that. How they feel looking at it, knowing exactly where it comes from, and their judgement of it based on their taste is a part of the personal connection needed to distinguish illustration as an art form.

Illustrations expect a personal connection and have an inherent illustrative connection. They are made for a reason with a specific intent behind them. The illustrative connection (universal) is greater than the personal connection to the average viewer here (note: average). The source below states, "Illustration is supportive in purpose and is more commercial in sense."

Fine art will always have an illustrative connection through what the viewer perceives, but it resides in hope to form a personal connection. The personal connection is either eventually or never at all greater than the illustrative connection to the average viewer.

Again, the source below states, "Fine art is not created with a motive of getting it printed." This important point implies that illustrations are printed and distributed multiple times. It has become easier to do this digitally with fine art, but let us stay on track. The uniting feature of illustrations is their accessibility by the average art viewer and more.

This is not to say that illustrations cannot be fine art and vice versa. Fine art seeks to please the viewer through its physicality, placement, and exclusivity and it is often considered successful if it does so. To me, this must be why galleries and museums with art that is adored by many exist and that's without considering a piece's historical significance.

Illustrations also seek to please the viewer, but more than only the average viewer. An illustration can be anything from designs on a website to pictures in a book – the viewer is either perusing the website or reading the book. Even personal pet portraits are illustrations – connecting illustratively first ("THIS IS MY PET") and definitely personally ("THIS IS MY PET DRAWN BY SO AND SO IN THIS WAY"). Regardless of my slightly far fetched argument and theory, they are a part of a passing or daily experience which makes their viewer more than an average viewer of art.

Big 'ole clarifying statement: Illustration solidifies itself as an art form through its conceivably personal connection because its viewers are more than those simply viewing art for the art's sake.

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-fine-art-and-vs-illustration/

It seems that your case pushes that thrillers are gluttonous, not intellectually stimulating and thus, a negative reading experience. I don't believe that reading and writing can inherently be anything besides actively intellectual. Kurt Vonnegut says, “By reading the writings of the most interesting minds in history, we meditate with our own minds and theirs as well."

Intellect engages a person's power to know without an immediate turn to feeling. Something may never be entirely known, but the act of engaging still remains – emotional or not. A thriller written with attention-grabbing details, though stimulating to our emotions and feelings regardless, provides the same layout of information to the most logical and emotional thinkers alike. A story is conducted – piecing it together may just be intellectual in itself.

Non-fiction thrillers like Capote's In Cold Blood should not be overlooked. Readers with a detailed understanding of the Clutter family murders, I assume, would compare the writing consistently with their knowledge. Is it truly unfulfilling to want to know more? Is it possible to be passive to a story broken down and building on itself?

As for fiction, thriller author L.A. Larkin states, "I believe that one of the reasons why crime fiction is so popular is that it allows us to wrestle with the big issues of our time in the context of a work of fiction, which acts like a safety net because we know it isn’t real." It would be difficult not to grapple with the topics that thrillers portray in comparison to all that we learn from various social movements and ethical dilemmas every day.

However, thrillers do require an emotional investment. Author Brad Taylor answered "What makes a good thriller?" by noting, "They [readers] only care if that bomb is going to harm someone they’ve invested emotional energy in — and that is the character of the story." It does not undermine the intellectual necessity to understand and consider the rooted elements in a thriller.

https://medium.com/publishous/kurt-vonneguts-lessons-on-writing-and-life-633a17097931
https://www.criminalelement.com/why-are-crime-thrillers-so-popular/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/books/review/brad-taylor-by-the-book-interview.html

Symbolism is definitely a loaded term and one that cannot relate to all art. Art can be taken in any direction, so the thought behind it doesn't necessarily imply a symbol. I don't even think I would consider allegorical art to be symbolic all of the time. There is symbolism within that form of art, but it doesn't guarantee that the piece as a whole is symbolic of anything.

Symbolism is more of a device than a nature for art. You see it in multiple forms of art. Poetry uses symbolism to tie in outside connections all the time, yet a poem doesn't have to be inherently symbolic. Maybe I'm taking this too far with semantics, but symbolic cannot be used interchangeably with expressive. I would agree that all art is expressive. The relationship between the artist and the viewer, in a general sense, is formed through an act of expression which may include a symbol.

I don't personally believe symbolism obscures anything. Going along with your argument, if information is obscured, a symbol still calls for an interpretation. An interpretation involves a translation error, more often than not, which completely diminishes the intended symbol the art stood for, if any in the first place. It absolutely does not mean that art, or a specific piece of art, is symbolic for the sake of it.

Having so many books that you may never find the time to read is not a sign of failure. Simply having a library of information that you can potentially learn from is so valuable to your capabilities as a thinker. Jessica Stillman addressed the benefits of owning more books than you can read, stating, “By living with that reminder daily [having many books] you can nudge yourself toward the kind of intellectual humility that improves decision-making and drives learning.” [1]

It’s important to maintain the same sense of curiosity you have when you look at your entire book collection as you do when you open an individual book. Instead of worrying about the books you never touch, remember how much information you have taken in and allow it to motivate you for more. Stillman also referenced the Dunning–Kruger effect – those with a lack of knowledge are more outwardly confident than those who doubt what they know. Why shouldn’t you flaunt your unread books? They are an access point for more knowledge!

Tsundoku is the Japanese word for this concept – literally meaning “to pile up reading material.” Kevin Mims wrote a piece on tsundoku in The New York Times and said, “The sight of a book you’ve read can remind you of the many things you’ve already learned. The sight of a book you haven’t read can remind you that there are many things you’ve yet to learn.” [2] I think it’s natural to hold books to a higher standard than most media as a source to learn from. To a certain extent, the books you own are a representation of your mind and thought process. You should appreciate and awe at how far your library has come.

[1] https://entrylevelrebel.medium.com/why-you-should-surround-yourself-with-more-books-than-youll-ever-have-time-to-read-aeb9cca212a4
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/books/review/personal-libraries.html

I believe a counter to this opinion, and undeniable support for it, is held within the 1998 James Merendino movie, "SLC Punk!".

"Another thing that pissed me off, talking about who started punk. Was it Sex Pistols in England? Was it the Ramones and the Velvet Underground in New York? Is it the Ramones? Is it the Sex Pistols?
...
Who cares who started it? It's music."

"Punk" is not some genre defying counterculture that was started and ended at a specific point unless you're a social theorist. Zine culture is still alive and well today – freelance art in general maintains the spirit of punk that is spoken of. The need for individualism, especially in today's vacuum of media, will always be present. Sure, there might be an original iteration that so called "punks" today will never relate to entirely, but what else is it besides the first point "punk" was used as a label?

Experience is experience for all despite what you want to call it. I think there's a larger discussion to be had on labels here. For now, I believe the concept of "punk" may never have been born in the first place.

Plato’s allegory depicts prisoners who live in the cave and all they know is the shadows; the manipulated images that puppeteers project on the wall. The prisoners are those who live in a state of ignorance and succumb to the illusion of knowledge by the fire’s projection and the puppeteers’ control. Plato acknowledges that if they were to speak, it would be about the shadows within their limited perspective.

Plato’s ideal republic is one where citizens are not ignorant – instead, believing and experiencing something greater. He presents the prisoners as those who live in total ignorance and have not been shown the truth and knowledge. The prisoners’ ignorance is rooted in the lack of truth and knowledge projected to them by the puppeteers; they believe everything to be real and ultimate because they are deluded by the information they receive. Without such information, it is implied that the prisoners are left to their own beliefs without guidance because it is all that they know.

In Plato’s republic citizens need guidance for the beliefs they are unaware of in themselves, so a gap is left for Plato’s guide to fill. They lead the prisoners and show them what is distinguished as the place of knowledge and truth; one that is both metaphorically and literally so bright and uncomfortable that this form of education becomes painful.

The connection to a functioning and healthy republic lies in the paradox of the guide. Though the guide is revealing information to the prisoners who supposedly held it within themselves already, as determined by the word education, does the guide become more than a guide for the prisoners – a divine savior of sorts?

Leaders/guides/saviors are a connection to a sense of “establishment,” whether that is where truth lies or not – in a spiritual sense, the “establishment” can be identified as a form of divinity. Plato writes of a figure who takes on the ignorance of the people in order to unlock their experience of truth and knowledge outside of the cave. If the guide was human, they would be biased like a prisoner in some way. If the guide was a personal projection, it would contradict the prisoners knowing only what lies in the cave and what is projected on the walls. Thus, the guide must be of a divine/spiritual/metaphysical nature.

Machiavelli’s ability to be largely misinterpreted at the hand of his tactics shows the complexity of The Prince in its political and moral representation. Structurally, the essay appears as a handbook for the maintenance of an image in power. A motivated piece like The Prince should not be, as political theorist Isaiah Berlin states in reference to Federico Chabod’s writings, “passionate to the point of unrealism” – pointing to the idea that it may even come off as satire [1]. The Prince fosters ideas of dominance and popularity by relying on misleading reasoning before developing an enduring sense of leadership and ethics for a ruler.

Machiavelli seems to make invalid arguments unapologetically, but I find it strange how he assumes an opponent's position without apprehension. “...he who is highly esteemed is not easily conspired against; for, provided it is well known that he is an excellent man and revered by his people, he can only be attacked with difficulty” [2, ch.19]. From my understanding, this is a naive fallacy at best. Assuming such results and allowing it to dictate the means of getting there roots itself in pretense over strategy. Machiavelli expresses an inherent power disposition, at best, through the people’s accordance with the prince. It could even be referenced as Machiavelli’s own form of a top-down political structure that relies on a leader's reputation through bottom-up politics.

Another example of an undeveloped claim is, “Every one sees what you appear to be...in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result” [2, ch. 18]. The generalization of the language in The Prince reveals Machiavelli’s method of focusing on image for effective rule. Machiavelli’s most universal claim throughout the piece is that the end justifies the means; an idea proposed as the basis of justification for a ruler’s motives. Though the intent behind this claim is clear, duplicity is enacted by Machiavelli’s presentation of subjectivity.

[1] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1971/nov/04/a-special-supplement-the-question-of-machiavelli
[2] www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm

Listening to music is more than just hearing a song. I wonder what would make the activity less intriguing than anything else which requires listening and an acknowledgement of your own tastes. There are multiple ways to listen to different music and different contexts to do so. A dancer on stage does not listen to music the same way an audio engineer in a professional recording studio does. Even the process of discovering music you like, along with listening to it, is extremely personal due to its subjective nature and can be done over and over again. Approaching the argument here requires addressing music as an art form.

Any art form involves a translation – an expression of the artist to the viewer, listener, or consumer. Music has become a commodity through its presence in everyday environments such as offices, coffee shops, and grocery stores. In reference to my point here, I would only agree that listening to music is overrated in certain contexts. Most places that play music do not provide an ideal position to truly acknowledge the artistry of a song, but the act of listening should be valued. Music begs to be heard, grappled with, and given the same attention as a book or a movie.

The ability to listen, as with any art form, comes with the ability to make taste assumptions. Music is often enjoyable for a singer's voice or the quality of the recording, but when you actively listen to a song, you earn what the artist is attempting to invoke. You can discover the layers and the sense of metaphorical and physical (the room it was recorded in) space that is emphasized for the sake of the composition, lyrics, and/or emotional impact. Not finding meaning in music is merely a taste assumption in itself, but considering music in general, or the act of listening to music to be overrated, devalues its genuine intent.

The Nonprofit Industrial Complex (NPIC) is a system that opposes its ideals of the greater good to continue to, ironically, provide aid by way of the sources who create the need for aid. These sources – the extremely wealthy who consistently benefit from and enforce a detrimental capitalist system – represent privilege and power with the impact of division even when supporting initiatives for change. As capitalism has weaved itself into democracy, those in positions of privilege and power and the NPIC continue to create a democratic deficit.

The NPIC is set-up with little thought of social benefits in mind and relies on a difference in economic power. It directly relates and informs capitalism in a way that attempts to soften its malicious intent. In short, donations to nonprofit organizations are tax deductible and preserve wealth for the wealthy. Socially, it provides them an opportunity to delineate their negative effect and show that they are doing enough in their position. Andrea Smith provided terms in The Global Industrial Complex as to how the NPIC operates (Best [Andrea Smith] 134):
• Monitor and control social justice movements
• Divert public monies into private hands through foundations
• Manage and control dissent in order to make the world safe for capitalism
• Redirect activist energies into career-based modes of organizing instead of mass-based organizing capable of actually transforming society
• Allow corporations to mask their exploitative and colonial work practices through “philanthropic” work
• Encourage social movements to model themselves after capitalist structures rather than to challenge them

Benefiting social change initiatives and the disenfranchised are not a focused part of the NPIC’s goals. The tax deductions on money that goes against these meaningful effects ends up withholding public funding on a large scale. Even foundations created by the wealthy for corporate profits with the perceived intent of helping workers and the public are no better than a glorified bank account (Best [Andrea Smith] 141). These foundations likely rely on a board of directors to dictate the means of their funds in ways that would not challenge capitalism (Best [Andrea Smith] 136). Change is not fostered under a complex in a flawed system and true democracy calls for movements to redirect power. The NPIC directly acts against the portrayed values of nonprofit organizations.

Best, Steven. The Global Industrial Complex: Systems of Domination. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books, 2011. Print.

(Main opinion edited to current state from 'Psychedelics induce the expansion of creative thinking')

The human mind in a conscious state is already extremely powerful for creating, but in an altered conscious state, the effects of the ideas presented through internal abstractions allow for an influential reactionary understanding of these ideas. Neurologically, the human mind has a plasticity that causes a response to the environment through sensory stimulation, but can the creative mind be changed by way of psychedelic substances to enhance neural plasticity and creative reflex? This change in brain function could be the source of influence on the presentation of creative initiatives in the mind. Through the access of altered states of consciousness (ASC) by way of psychedelic drugs, the creative process is affected by the change in the human mind’s reaction to presented ideas that the mind cannot appease in an unaffected state.

During an ASC, cognitive function takes a new form that may make it difficult to identify a difference between reality and the interpretation of reality. In the prefrontal cortex of the brain, the impact of psychedelics on neurons and the connections between them are similar to the way the environment and certain experiences affect the mind overtime. Thus, the argument lies in the consideration of neural plasticity. Neurons respond to visuals and thoughts and connect them through cognitive and expressive responses while the context of the environment creates a vulnerability that affects the experience in ASCs [1]. Michael Pollan, psychedelics activist and author of How to Change Your Mind, refers to this through Humphry Osmond and Abram Hoffer’s experiments. These effects can be described specifically as sensory experiences. An early study of LSD’s effects on creative minds conducted by Zegans, et al. identified reactionary, sensory based experiences in which, “It [LSD] increased the accessibility of remote or unique ideas and associations to their [subjects’] conscious awareness” [2].

Pollan determines the concept that, “The increase in entropy [a decline into disorder] allows a thousand mental states to bloom, many of them bizarre and senseless, but some number of them revelatory, imaginative, and, at least potentially, transformative. One way to think about this blooming of mental states is that it temporarily boosts the sheer amount of diversity in our mental life. If problem solving is anything like evolutionary adaptation, the more possibilities the mind has at its disposal, the more creative its solutions will be” [1]. With an increased accessibility to thoughts, neurological responses triggered consistently continue to invoke the brain’s plasticity to the point where an ASC becomes an invitation for the openness to creative thought. Dimensions of creativity that can be correlated with psychedelics include counterfactual thinking and conceptual blending. Counterfactual thinking involves thinking against facts, but maintains the question of ‘what if?’ in mind. Conceptual blending identifies a basic process of thought and the creation of something new by a combination of ideas. New connections by way of psychedelics allow the mind to appease these thoughts through creativity and potentially present a counterfactual reality. With the introduction of psychedelics to a creative process, the mind may simply be more openly receptive to new connections than in sobriety.

Creativity’s identifiable disassociation from personality traits considers the effectiveness of ASCs in the creative process on a larger scale. The inconsistency in the traits of creative people are always something to be considered, which makes studying the correlation of psychedelics and creativity more effective than studying the experience that occurs. Developed quantitative research has been limited for the studies of psychedelics, but in terms of creativity, “One is to separate creativity from other effects of the drug that may be mistaken for creativity. The second is to develop operational measures to quantify it” [3], as put in a review of psychedelic studies by Matthew Baggott, who makes academic efforts to document the effects of ASCs. However, in a study of the effects of psilocybin conducted by Katherine A. MacLean, Matthew W. Johnson, and Roland R. Griffiths, ‘openness to experience’ was the only trait that showed a significant increase in the pre-NEO-PI personality assessment on individuals who were given a higher dose [4]. This correlation reveals how psychedelics induce the expansion of creative thinking that goes into artistic endeavors in terms of the openness to experience thoughts, senses, and surroundings.

[1] Pollan, M. (2018). How to change your mind: What the new science of psychedelics teaches us about consciousness, dying, addiction, depression, and transcendence. New York: Penguin Press.

[2] Sessa, B. (2008). Is it time to revisit the role of psychedelic drugs in enhancing human creativity? Journal of Psychopharmacology, 22(8), 821–827.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881108091597\

[3] Baggott, MJ. 2015. Psychedelics and creativity: a review of the quantitative literature. PeerJ
PrePrints 3:e1202v1. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1202v1

[4] MacLean, K. A., Johnson, M. W., & Griffiths, R. R. (2011). Mystical experiences occasioned by the hallucinogen psilocybin lead to increases in the personality domain of openness. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 25(11), 1453–1461.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881111420188