What is Identity?

Hello

I've been wondering about identity. What makes me, me and you, you? 

Philosophy says: -

identity is whatever makes something the same or different.

Sociology says: -

an individuals comprehension of him or herself as a discrete, separate entity.

In fact the more I look into this the more I realise no one has a definitive description of identity. Everyone approaching the question from their own perspective and experiences. So, what goes into our identity? Are we born with it? Is it our soul? Our DNA? Our life experiences? Is it what we mean to others? Is it what we do? Is it all of these things? 

I'm sure we've all heard people day "I'm not the same person I was X years ago, I've changed." So, lets assume that identity, primarily our self identity is flexible. Is it identity chosen by us then? 

Three main factors of identity

1. DNA - Our building blocks, mapping out what we will look like, what our brain's capabilities will do. 

2. Social Impact - Learnt behaviour, socially accepted norms, psychological development etc.

3. Personal Will - Our ability to take control of our naturally born attributes and our learnt behaviour and change them. Learn more, change our behaviours use or disregard any biological characteristics. 

All three components are intrinsically interwoven. 

(Ok, so you're probably thinking DNA doesn't change. Well. yes, DNA doesn't. But we do change what we do with our DNA. I used to love swimming, I could be genetically predisposed to being a fantastic swimmer. But I haven''t been swimming for years. The DNA is the same but it's relevance is questionable. You may have brown hair but dye it blond. DNA is massive, but it's impact on identity is derived by personal will, social impact and yes, DNA. One DNA characteristic counteracting another. I'm great with three dimensional strategy, I can anticipate what a footballer will do when he's heading towards me in a football game, I can plan how best to stop them. I can train my body to have the physical capabilities to stop them. All influenced by DNA. But I have a hypersensitivity to pain and my social awkwardness makes it difficult interacting on a team. Both caused by DNA. So I don't play football.)

So, how do we identify our self? 

• Photo's - DNA
  
• Names - Social 
  
• Our jobs - Personal will 
  

When introducing yourself to someone else you cover all of these three characteristics and probably don't realise it. We all identify ourselves on these three levels. 

Which one is stronger? hmmm..... all of them are strong. All of them balance each other. 

• Your personal will, will only go so far before social pressures or physical limitations kick in. 
  
• Your social role is limited by your physical attractiveness and capabilities as well as your willingness to interact with society. 
  
• Your physical characteristics are limited by your desire to act upon them. Social influences and personal will impact our diet, exercise, what products we use, what skills we develop.  (For an odd example, I may be genetically predisposed to being a fantastic psychopath. But society would not approve, I've learnt that it's bad and I personally don't want to do it.)

How do you define the identities of those around you? Is our identity purely what people perceive of us?

Our brains store a catalogue of people in our minds. We need to define each one as differant in order to interact with them. So we define that person's identity for them and treat them accordingly. 

Even if you are married to someone you can't know their whole identity, it's to complex. So we generalise. We use stereotypes. We track common characteristics of people with similar details and build up a picture of their identity in our minds. 

Recently there has been outrage at bankers for loosing all the money. If we see a banker we automatically assume now that they are money hungry, risk taking valueless people. Without even meeting someone you have defined someones personal will identity as uncaring. You've defined their social identity as being corrupted, they've learnt the wrong lessons, their parents must have done this to them. And you've defined their DNA.. "I bet they have a small penis." "They were bad at sports at school so they're making up for it now." 

So, in reality, identity is both something so massive and personal that no one can ever understand. AND something someone can define you as, without knowing you at all. 

Which I think it why it makes it so hard to define exactly what we mean by identity. The word is imprecise. The way others perceive your identity is uncontrollable. So if you say identity is what makes you the same or different, it depends on who's actually making that decision. If I was a banker I'd be the same as all the other bankers. But if I'm your child I'm unique. If I'm your child and a banker then the credit crunch is automatically my fault, but you forgive me for it and start telling the neighbours that you were the only one who predicted it and tried to stop the madness. The one good banker! 

Identity then has two perspectives. Self identity and Social identity.

Self identity is what you define yourself as. Ironically most people define themselves as whatever their social identity is. So let's look at social identity.

Social identity is defined as how others see you. Social identity is based on such little information it can be easily manipulated like the mother above telling the neighbours about the valiant struggles of her son to stop the credit crunch. Or advertising on television. 

When people pick a career they want to go into, they typically are using their personal will to pick the social identity they want. Therefore someone saying "My son's a doctor" you might jump to "is he cute/married?" On the other hand "My son's a Republican senator", I'd probably just politely walk away. 

Personal will is influenced by social and DNA so you assume the doctor is smart and has been raised well. That he's passionate, caring and rich. 

The Republican senator is also smart, more than likely rich. But you automatically question his upbringing or his caring nature. Maybe the mothers overprotective and the father abusive. (At least you do if you're a Democrat. Sorry Republicans, that's how you are perceived.) 

Coming back to self identity. If it's so infuenced by social identity. Then is the self identity the weaker of the two aspects? Or because our self identity influences our social identity so much is self identity the stronger? 

Most people live their lives trying to understand their self identity at the same time they try and control their social identity. We all want to be liked. We want our identity to be something people like. We judge our own success based on how others percieve us. So the two identities are both important. Everyone weighs the two differantly. 

The people who are nervous and the people who are confident. The balance I think largely relates to how they balance their self and social identities. Nervous people value social identity more, they are more likely to view themselves and thier accompishments through the eyes of others. They worry more about how they are seen in society. Confident people are more likely to value their personal identity more than their social identity. They do what they feel is best suited to their own beliefs and how they define themselves. 

Whether we favour social identity or self identity is also an aspect of our identity. It is influenced by what we've learn't, personal will of how it affects us and is influenced by our DNA. Natrually attractive people tend to value that attractiveness less than someone who isn't attractive. The DNA making them attractive, plus social impact and perception of that attractiveness giving them confidence, helps define their view of the world and their personal will. 

Those of us with a poor perception of our social identity, worry about our social identity. Those with a good social identity tend to worry more about their personal identity. They complain that they're idea's aren't taken seriously because they're cute. Their social identity, whilst being positive, compromises thier personal identity and that's what they're more concerned about. 

This seems to lead to a self fulfilling policy and moral of the story, but which one. 

• Be true to yourself and you'll be happy? 
  
• If you focus on pretending to be good then people will think you are and therefore you'll be good? 
  

I've always focused on the top one. I have strong personal values, although I am nervous. But the second one, although it seems odd, seems to be the key to happiness. Can faking our identity really be the right thing to do to make us happy? 

What do you think?

What am I? Why do I do the things that I do?

Hello

Wow! The last week has been crazy. Really crazy. As I mentioned in my last post, I haven't been feeling too great. I've been trying to analyze what the problem could be. I'm at a point in my life where I need to make sense of a lot of things. I'm not really a social type of person, it can be difficult for me to feel ike I fit in to situations. Small talk is difficult, I prefer to talk about the big important things. I can get carried away thinking and analyzing certain subjects and situations, hence this blog. 

It's weird going through life knowing I'm differant to other people. I thought this was just because I was bi, but even in the gay community I know I'm differant. But I've never really known why. I get on best with people that are also seen as differant, don't know why, just always have. 

I have a clear idea in my head of right and wrong. I try very hard to get social situations right. To say the right thing. Work out why people do what they do and where I fit in with everything. When I started this blog I wanted it to be called something that was true to me. The side of my I tend to keep hidden. The same applies to my profile. 

The last few weeks have been a real trip through the looking glass into who I am. Drudging up my past trying to find an answer. Trying to work out why certain things have gone wrong. Writting all of it down on this blog has helped filter my thoughts and although the vast majority of this I haven't posted. It has been helpful. But I needed something more. Researching psychology doesn't make me an expert in it. So I went to a qualified therapist. 

That was a week ago and that's why things are so crazy since then. I have my diagnosis. I now know. I know why I am who I am. 

It's weird these profound pieces of information you get. I find it hard to describe. The best I can come up with is this. My life has been like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle, when I was young, I was working in the dark, by myself. Over the years it's gotten lighter as I've learnt more, seen more and had more contact with people. But I never knew what the picture on the jigsaw was, so it was still difficult to make any sense of it. Right now I feel like someone's given me that picture. Suddenly over the last week, pieces are just falling into place. Everything makes more sense. The jigsaw is far from finished it won't be finished until the day I die. But I have hope again. Having the picture is what I needed to put things in perspective and give me hope. 

You might be wondering what I have that could have such a profound effect on me. Well. I have Asperger Syndrome.

What's that?

Asperger Syndrome seems to be the syndrome that's seen but not spoken of. Possibly because it was only defined 10 years ago. But with 1 in 150 people who have it and countless characters on TV that are shown to have it I'm amazed that whilst I liked a lot of the characters, I had no idea what they had in common. 

Just a few examples of TV and Film characters likely to be inspired by Aspergers (if not a perfect match): -

• Basil Faulty - Faulty Towers
  
• Gus Hedgers - Drop the dead donkey
  
• Sheldon - The Big Bang Theory
  
• Arnold Rimmer - Red Dwarf
  
• Data, Spock, Reg Barclay, Dr Julian Bashir and The Doctor (Voyager), Seven of Nine - Star Trek
  
• Lisa Simpson - The Simpsons
  
• Cliff Clavin - Cheers
  
• Michelle (bandcamp girl) - American Pie
  
• Most of the characters - Third Rock from the Sun
  
• Dr Daniel Jackson - Stargate (film, not TV serise so much)
  
• Dr. McKay - Stargate Atlantis
  
• Chloe O'Brian (loyal to Jack Bauer) - 24
  
• Reg Hollis - The Bill
  
• Mork from Orson - Mork and Mindy
  
• Benton Fraser - Due South
  
• Brennan and Zack - Bones
  
• Moss - The IT Crowd
  
• Rocko - Rocko's Modern Life 
  
• Brain - Pinky and the Brain
  
• Jerry Espenson - Boston Legal
  
• Gil Grissom and Hodges - CSI
  
• Dr House - House
  
• Neo - The Matrix (Something about this line that's always resonated with me. Now I know why. Morpheus: "What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad." )
  
• The Thermians - GalaxyQuest
  
• Lt. Felix Gaeta - Battlestar Galactica
  
• Clark Kent - Superman
  
• "Doc" Emmett Brown - Back To The Future 
  
• The Lone Gunmen - X-Files
  
• Velma from Scooby-Doo
  
• Willow - Buffy 
  
• C-3PO from Star Wars
  
• Erica Hahn - Grey's Anatomy
  
• Bridget Jones - Bridget Jones Diary 
  
• Niles Crane - Fraiser
  

I also need to mention the book "The Positronic Man" - Issac Asimov. One of my ex's said I was like the robot in the story... over 10 years ago. Turns out Issac had Aspergers and was likely drawing on that to create the character. 

Most medical descrptions of the thing don't really help, I think to get a feel for what it actually is. But here's one anyway. 

http://www.brainskills.co.uk/WhatIsAspergersSyndrome.html

Asperger Syndrome can be very difficult to identify as the symtoms can show in a variety of ways and once a person reaches adulthood they will typically have mastered a range of skills that hide how they are, a filter between what their brain thinks and what comes out of their mouth. A filter between themselves and those around them so they can better fit in. 

Conclusion

The moral of the story is, if you believe there is an answer. There probably is, you just don't know it yet. It can be a difficult struggle to find your answer and it may take many years. But it's out there and when you are ready to know, you've got to try everything you can to find it. Because it's truely life changing. 

What next? 

Well.. as I only get about one hit a week and I now have my answer, I was thinking about shutting the blog down. But really, despite immersing myself in all things Aspergers in the last week, I've got a long way to really understand what this means for me and I think writting on here will help. *hopefully*

I really need to go to bed now it's 2.30AM here. But I'm quite puzzled by not only the number of references to Aspergers people, but also the fact that it's never really discussed. It's also interesting that it's these specific types of characters that are seen as the popular characters. I realise there is a big problem with undiagnosed Aspie's, but just how many do you think are out there? I've also noticed just how aspie a number of my friends are. 

Not to mention my dilema of how to act? Tell everyone and risk being seen as disabled. Hide it. How to manage my friends who I'm sure are also aspie, tell them or not? All this and more I hope to blog on as it's certainly my latest compulsion. 

Who's late night shopping?

Hello

I'm having one of those days where all the little things that go wrong appear like a huge mountain in front of me. Not being able to see the top, it seems almost impossible to think I have to climb it. 

On days like this I often revert to a need to buy something bad for me that I can't afford. Junk food, dvd's, maybe some beers. Which is how I ended up in the supermarket. 

Supermarkets are weird places, there probably the only time to see a complete cross section of society. There one of the places we so commonly find ourselves in, surounded by people but ultimately alone, annonymous. I swear in supermarkets these days you could drop dead and no one would notice. Especially the staff. I'm sure zombie films are made by people who used to work in a supermarket. 

But there's something quite reasuring about late not shopping when you're not feeling to good. You can be around others that are in exactly the same mood. First stop in the store is the DVD's. The isle's odly now been moved to the back of the store, so you have to walk past the stationary, home and garden products of all description and all manor of things on your way. The DVD aisle is always quite busy. Late nights especially, always middle aged guys with vacant looks. They don't pick up any of the DVD's, they never seem to buy them either. But they are always there. Occasionally moving along the aisle a bit when they think it starts to look a bit odd that they aren't moving along. Shoulder's slumped forward as if they have just lost all hope.

I managed to get 'Burn after reading' I've been waiting for it to come out on DVD for ages and I'm confident it will put a good dent in my mood and I move on round the store. 

I've forgotten what else I wanted, so wander aimlessly, passing aisle after aisle. Past the special Mothers Day section where I suddenly realise most people in the store are foraging for anything Mothers Day related. (Luckily this I sorted mine pressie ages ago.) Half of them carrying a bunch of flowers (which are starting to look like they've had their best days already). The other areas of the store are quite quiet. The odd couple, odd odd couples as well. They too have a vacant look in their eyes when they're looking at the shelves which the quickly hide when they start to talk to their partner "Shall we get 2 of these, or do you think one is enough?" or "Oh, this one's got mushrooms!" There's only so much fake excitement you can put into your voice when you're trying to sell the line "Oh, this one's got mushrooms!". Instead of solving their problem it is like a big sign appears over their head saying "Ahh, you're annoying me. Where did we go wrong?"

I get some milk and beer and head for frozen foods. Today's a day where Ben and Jerry's is certainly called for. Preferably Cookie Dough, half way through contemplating how big a tub I need I turn the corner to find a young girl staring at the Ben and Jerry's, her boyfriend spooning her from behind. He's trying to sound really interested in the conversation she's having about the merits of the differant types of Ben and Jerry's. Nibbling the back of her neck. Damn.... I really need Ben and Jerry's... I'll need to go a circuit of the shop and come back. 

Past the crisps aisle and the beer again, this time busy with a group of kids trying to work out which one of them looked the oldest, so they could by beer. Another suggesting that they try and get away with 'self scan'. I carry on, past the cleaning products and it suddenly jumps into my head. I need sink unblocker. Not really the reason I went to the store, but as I'm thier. Why not. 

Right, they must have finished in the ice-cream aisle by now, so I head back. They haven't. But they have moved on from the Ben and Jerry's section so I swoop the last big tub of Cookie Dough and make for the check outs. 

I just get beaten to a really good check out because one of the zombie's has managed to get thier trolley to block half the aisle and their ass to fill the rest. A brilliant skill which happens so often in the supermarket you'd think they were training people to do it. But, I'm getting distracted, where was I.

I make it to a check out which is facing the self scan. The spooning couple from earlier walking rather quickly past with a 2Litre tub of strawberry icecream, a big tub of Ben and Jerry's, huge bag of chocolate and crisps. They can't possibly be planning on eating all of that, so I'm guessing he couldn't wait any longer to get home and just grabbed anything in sight. 

I get served and asked for ID for the beer, which considering I'm 27 and you can drink here at 18 is a bit harsh. Normally this would be quite a complement, but the check out guy make it clear that he thought I was definitly over 25, but the computer randomly selected me for a check. (Yeah.. thanks for that. Like I wasn't feeling down enough before.) 

I pick up my bags and catch out of the corner of my eye the kids from the beer aisle just leaving the store with big grins on their faces...I'm guessing they weren't randomly selected for an ID check. 

With a flash back to the days when I used to attempt things like that... seeming soo long ago now. I leave the store feeling not only down but old as well. 

Oh well. Now I'm going to watch the film and devour my ice-cream. Hopefully that'll put me in a better mood. 

Night! 

What is the value of Christianity?

Hello

Well, the blogs for some big questions so this is a big question. I'm not religious, I consider myself agnostic (I have a personal level of faith and beliefs but they don't fit any known religion). So in this century called the post religion century, what is the value of Christianity. 

Historical Merits of Christianity. 

The Bible - Fact or Fiction?

I'm just watching a documentary on the TV about the truth behind religion. I'm shocked to learn that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem. According to the documentary Jesus was of Nazareth. In Jewish faith a great leader would come from Bethlehem. So the writers of the bible used creative licence to add in the idea that Mary would trek across the country to Bethlehem for a census to the Roman Empire. The problem is the Roman Empire didn't stretch that far. 

So, regardless of your personal beliefs, let's just explore the possibility that the Bible is less a historical fact, but more of a wikapedia. A document that is revised and altered to better suit the reader (and the writer). There are many and many examples of this happening it would take months to go through them all. Some of the most recent changes are documented here http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html But the Bible has been altered right from the start. 

So, why was the Bible written? Jesus didn't write it. He didn't ask for it to be written, otherwise it wouldn't have taken 150 years to get around to it. I mean who procrastinates THAT much especially when the son of God asks you to do things. 

So, what was the basis of the Bible? Why was it created? Who was it for?

Oddly, I've just realised, I've never wondered WHY the Bible was created. I just accepted that of course it would be. Just like, if you go on Big Brother, of course you're going to release a Christmas song, exercise video and a biography, all within a few months. But why create it is key to understanding the document. It gives it context. Let's not forget, Jesus wasn't part of a reality TV show. No one knew who he was, so why would anyone want to read a book about him? Who bought it? Well, books back then had to be handwritten, they were very expensive and only the very rich could afford it. 

This website (although bias,) has some interesting perspectives on the issue.

http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99932.qna/category/th/page/questions/site/iiim

It's important to remember that context is very important. The Bible was written in a time before the Internet (yes, such a time existed). Before the telephone, radio, television, train, newspaper and even the printed book. Villages did barter and currency was around, but very very little literature existed. Most village communities were probably getting pretty bored before then. There's only so many stories that can be told in a community. A book was a great opening into something wider, it was the source of knowledge and entertainment. A book like the Bible had to BE the whole of the Internet in one for people to invest soo much money in it. It had to teach people, it had to have history, drama, morals, fantasy, intrigue, news, politics, public opinion and much much more. I'm finding it difficult to find something in modern society I can relate it too, everything nowadays is so.. instant. Closest I can get is when the Wii first came out. If you had it then you had status (or you'd slept outside the shop). Friends, family and in some cases neighbours would come round to wonder at it. Or when the new Harry Potter books come out and there's a competition as to who's got to what page so far. 

There's much debate around the changes that happened to Christianity, the move away from Judaism which was boosted by the Roman attack on Jerusalem and shaped, largely by St. Paul. The message changed to suit the politics and power of the day as it has done ever since. 

Why is it SO popular?

We'd like to think that psychology and sociology have only been invented recently. Granted the terms and the depth of understanding has advanced significantly. But that's not to say that people haven't had an understanding of what motivates people, how people act both individually and as a group. Psychological issues didn't start because Freud invented them, he observed people. Propaganda wasn't invented by the Victorians, that's been going on since the dawn of man and understanding what makes a viable society is what has allowed our species to grow and thrive. 

There are a great deal of universal truths that shine out from the Bible. Have you ever read a book, seen a comedian, heard a great speech and thought, "Wow, I do that too." or "I agree they make a lot of sense, but I thought I was the only one that thought that way." The Bible helped people feel connected, allowed them to explore view points that they hadn't before. The Bible (like most religious text) provided the information people needed to succeed. Through greater education, moral guidance societies with a strong religious grounding have grown and thrived. 

The text at the time represented the latest thinking, ethics and ethos of the advanced Roman Empire.

Christianity - Aiding human evolution

Religions have been a glue that has brought people together. The Church introduced schools, hospitals, counselling and therapy and held out above all else the concept of sacrifice for society, for the greater good. The Church was for a long time quite left wing in it's thinking. Society held up Christianity as the right way to behave. It has been important for the good of society to entrench certain values more than others. That life is precious, so try not to kill too many people. That you shouldn't go around shagging everything in sight because society can't care for all the children, and once you've picked one person to shag, stay with them and raise the children. It helped pull ourselves away from our natural instinct, urges and caveman like attitudes to something more. To an appreciation of the greater society. 

Sacrifices had to be made

In order for Christianity sustain itself for so long, it needed the backing of the state, Kings, Lords, Barons all had to 'get it' and like it. They were the ones with the power and influence to keep the religion going. The context of the Bible's teachings adapted and manipulated by whoever was in charge at the time. Subjugation of women and fear towards other religions acted to support those in charge and defend the faith.  I'm sure these were seen at the time as necessary for the greater good.

 

Conclusion

So I think that the Bible and the religion based on it is really driven by this social and cultural need for guidance, structure and co-operation. Society needs role models in order to work out what they should do. A template of how you should act. If you base behaviour purely on the people you know, society would be extremely fractured. In a time where few people ever travelled to the next town. How do you create a coherent country. How do you create loyalty and get people to abide by the law? You need something that unites everyone. Something that everyone believes in. 

Religion has been essential in order to get us where we are today. It's been our training wheels as our society has evolved. We owe a lot to religion. But that doesn't mean that we can't evolve beyond it. We have reached a point in society that we are able to revise and refine our faith. Whilst the key values in Christianity are universal, they are in all religions and they will live beyond Christianity as they do for many people, including myself, in today's society. 

We are at a point now where the essence, the core right and wrong. that has inspired so many to be good people, has lived on. The sacrifices that were made to accommodate the times they were written are no longer needed. I appreciate that not many people agree on what aspects of the teachings fall under the necessary and the not necessary parts of the Bible, that debate will go on for a long time. But I think we are moving towards making better decisions about what we need and what we don't. We are able to build a better template for a society that doesn't have the constraints that most religions had in the past. We're still seeking enlightenment and social acceptance, they are key to our human psychology.

So, the value of Christianity? It has been huge. It should be respected as a very good idea. But it can't be seen as perfect. It can't prevent new and better ideas. It may be the foundation to our society, but now we want to build the walls, the roof. We want to use what we know now to create the social template that, I beleive, those who started religion truly wanted to, but couldn't achieve in their day.  

Are you religious or not? What do you think? I'm more than happy to receive other view points on this, for or against. 

How many types of friend do you have?

Hello

I think social networking was invented by someone like me. Who likes the idea of having lots of friends, but tihnks it could be more 'efficient'. Sorry, that does make me sound cold. But I'm really not. I'm someone who strongly believes in best friends.  I have a small network of very close friends. But then a have a big network of not so close friends. 

Maintaining 'not so close' friendships is difficult and time consuming. Very inefficient. After all there's a reason you like and want to be friends with them, but there's also a reason they aren't 'best friends'. This can be for any number of reasons, let me know if any of these ring a bell with your friend network?

Work friends - It's good to have someone you can confide in about work things, someone who you know has your back. But work life doesn't nesessarily translate well into your private life. There are typically thing you don't want getting out at work! (Especailly if your friend is your boss!)

Long Distance Friends - Oh, gone are the days you could phone them up at 5 and be in be pub at 6 for a night on the town. These are friends that through pure circumstances no longer live near you and you start to fall behind on their every day activities. You can't be there when they're low and they can't be there for you when you are. Although neither party typically wants it to happen, the friendship inevitibly drifts.

Friends that fell in love - In my experience this is the most painful type of friendship. Someone who you're really close to, get on well with and increasingly seems to spend time with suddenly announces they are in love with you. Telling a friend that you don't feel that way is very hard. It's also hard to know that if such a thing were to happen to that firend you'd normally be the person they talk to, but now your the problem not the solution. The awkwardness of this situaiton makes it almost inevitable that the friendship won't last. 

Friends that just aren't that into you - You think they live such facinating lives, they always know what to do. You look up to them as a role model of how you should be. But they keep cancelling on you and you found out they went out with loads of people and didn't invite you. Yes, you're friend just isn't that into you. As happens in relationships, this can happen in friendships too. It's a shame, but it's inevitable. These are typically the friends you aren't too close to but for years to come you'll wonder 'what did I do wrong?' 'did I drive them away?' 'maybe I should have texted/called them more?"

Desperate Friends 

 This is my second most annoying type of friend. The type of person that's happy to buy you things, drinks, tickets etc. They phone you on a regular basis and are always making plans for you to go out. (I know I havent gotten to the annoying bit yet.. bare with me). - I've had to split this up into subcatagories

It's all about THEM friends - These are the types of people who, when you do spend time with them spend ALL of it talking about themselves. Typical conversations that are repeated over and over and over until you want to tear out your eyes and ears. If you've ever thought "FFS Just break up with them, they're bad news! They were bad news when you first got together 2 years ago, they're still bad news now. AHHHH!!! Why ask for advice if you aren't going to listen to it!!!" I have the utmost sympathy for anyone with a friend like this. In other respects they may be great, but when you start having dark thoughts about hurting them if they bring it up again, it's probably a good idea that you don't spend too much time with them.

"I just want to spend time with you" friend - The type of firend that doesn't really have anything to SAY about themselves and starts pointless conversations all the time. If they've asked you the same question 3 times in a single conversation and won't get off the phone even when the conversation died 20 minutes ago. These are desperate friends. I feel sorry for this type of friend because they clearly need something, but won't really talk about it. Push too hard to try and find out the reason and you get the "I just want to spend time with you, what's wrong with that?" This type of friend typically doesn't want to go out much or do anything exciting together, they just want to 'hang out' all the time and talk about... nothing. It's very difficult to breathe live into these friendships so again you start to distance yourself. (Yes, drifting from this type is very hard, it's more a crowbar you need to get them off! Unfortunately you usually loose them as a friend in the process)

Friends from the past - You were once, bet buds and they always knew what you were thinking. But both you and your friend have grown up a bit. Interests have changed, you've both moved on with your lives. But when you do get together you can't think of any reason why you don't spend more time with each other. But then you don't see each other for 6 months or so, cos of work or family, or relationships. These are the 'lost friends'. I miss these friends the most. It seems that fate has pulled you in two very differant directions and the gap seems to keep getting bigger every time you see them. 

Ex boy/girl friends - "Promise me, we'll always be friends" or "Can't we just be friends" are two of the biggest 'miss sell' of any friendships. You like to think you won't loose that person just because you aren't dating. After all they still mean a lot to you. But it's never the same after the break up. All the fun memories, the occasional surpressed sexual tension, the hole you feel in the pit of your stomach when they start dating someone else. Even with the best of intentions friendships with ex's rarely work out. And they NEVER work out if you try and be friends straight after the break up. You need a good couple of years apart if this type of friendship is going to stand any chance at all. 

The 'Not really friends' friends - We've all got loads of these. People who hang out in the same group as your friends. Someone who you always say hi to and small talk them. But really you know very little about them and for some reason you just haven't 'clicked' but they're friends with your friends, so they become friends by default. This is an odd friend group, you go to their birthday because all you other friends are going, but you just have no idea what to get them as a pressie because you don't really know them. This is a difficult dilema as if getting vouchers might as well be the same thing as wearing a t-shirt saying "Don't know who the f&^k you are, but I heard there's free beer?"

Aww.. this post has really brought back a lot of memories, good and bad. That's all the types I can think if at the moment. Will update if I can think of more. Add a comment if you can think of any more? 

Starship Troopers - A shocking prediction of the future?

Hello

I watched Starship Troopers earlier and I was quite surprised how many similarities the film had with events that have taken place since the film was made. Is the story so sucessful because it deals with what would happen when a society is threatened. Is it because the film was based on the book of a writer who's inspiration was the experiences he had during the second world war and history is doomed to repeat itself? Life imitates art as it where, but in this sci-fi film which is seemingly so abstract from reality were they able to show something true about the human condition. 

Similarities

Patriotism

Film: Youth being taught a strong patriotic bond. That there should be almost blind alligence with their society.

Reality: Patriotism has always played a major role in American society. It was really nesessary for a country that was such a melting pot of so many immigrants that people held alligence to America, rather than their countries of origin. Whilst times may have changed, this hasn't. As shown during the many debates about whether the presidential candidates were seen to be 'patriotic enough to be president' http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/07/15/patriotism-shouldnt-be-questioned-just-taught/

Military Glorification

Film: "I'm doing my part. Service guarentees citizenship. Would you like to know more?"

The film clearly shows the wonder with which the new recruits look upto the all powerful military and quite literally put their lives in it's hands. 

Reality: The US military has a very active publicity machine designed to boost faith (and 'faith') in the military. In a democracy this is an important thing for a military to do as they need to 'justify' their budgets and support for the military often gives political cover. (Just been reading exerts of this (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zB8J2ho-0k8C&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=Guts+and+Glory:+The+Making+of+the+American+Military+Image+in+Film+synopsis&source=bl&ots=7YXQg6KNmV&sig=TOVBIM2x5PhZQlrmpo0kDg67QMc&hl=en&ei=5lK4Sf2XDtnHjAeMqJmcCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPR11-IA1,M1) 

"To the extent that the book has a thesis, it postulates that hollywood's creation image of the all-powerful, always victorious armed services through the late 1950's contributed to the ease with which Lyndon Johnson and the best and brightest people in government tok the United States int othe quagmire of Vietnam." 

The book not only explains the motivation of some to glorify the military in America but also the effects this glorification can have, positive and negative. How it can pursuade people of the military's invincibility, strength and urgent purpose of it. 

BUT.... Yes. But of course these are common aspects of American society. Get to the future bit! 

ok! 

A Society Attacked

Film: The film shows that an enemy known, but thought to not be a huge threat (Arachnids) are able to launch a massive and devistating attack on Buenas Aries. The routine of peoples lives and training camp exercies suspended as everyone is glued to the news to see this attack. Revenge, anger and loss are all clearly viewable and commented on in the news article. So, what is such a society to do? War. 

Reality: You probably know where I'm going with this. You probably remember where you were the day it happened. September 11th. Burn't into all our minds as a great turning point. When we all suddenly felt so vulnerable, angry and vengeful after the terrorist attacks. Just starring at the 24 hour news channels watching the flames and smoke billowing out of the World Trade Centre. It didn't take long for the news to speculate the guilt and start discussing what a suitable response would be. It wasn't long before we all started learning about Afghanistan. I'd barely heard of it before and I certainly couldn't place it on a map. But something 'had' to be done. There would be a 'war on terror'. But it wasn't clear where on the map this war would be.

Knee Jerk Invasion

Film: Very quickly it seems an invasion is planned and launched against Klendathu (sp?). The decisions are based on the societies pre-existing assumptions of the enemy. Assuming that the insects possessed no actual intelligence and that stopping them would be like stepping on a cockroach.

Reality: Whilst everyone got all 'gun-ho' on revenge, a quickly formed alliance started the invasion of Afghanistan. It's fair to say that there wasn't really time to prepare, ensure that training was given on how to handle combat in rocky environments. Equipment shortages were common and a dreadful lack of interpreters lead to breakdowns in communication with locals. But of course the thinking at the time was that we would capture and hold Afghanistan very quickly.

The West would like to see a short, sharp war resulting in the vaporising of the Taliban followed by a quick transition to a regime the West could live with, while grateful Afghan civilians applaud joyously from the sidelines.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/invasion-by-infidels-will-turn-taliban-into-heroes-670125.html

Just need to quote the chilling last sentence

However truly terrible the consequences, many will happily rally behind the flag.

It's not like no one suspected. But no one listened. 

"To fight the bug we must understand the bug"

Film: In the film after the failure of the invasion and the clear misjudgement over the enemy, the leader in charge resigns.

Reality: If only this bit followed the film. If only. Unfortunately it would be another 6 years before the leader that started the invasion would leave.

Also both in the film and in reality numbers of dead seem so abstract. We can't process in our minds the sheer numbers of people who died or were injured.  When it started we'd get pages showing the photo's of those killed.. then they stopped doing that. In the film you have the screen with all the names running up, the total at the top over 326,000. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/11/afghanistan.unitednations

Brains of the operation in a cave.

Film: In the film they identify the leader 'brain' bug who's been co-ordinating the mindless arachnids to devastating effects. The specialist skill of the brain bug is less brain washing, more brain sucking. The brain bug is hiding in a complex network of caves and is captured! 

Reality: Of course there was clearly a brain behind the organisation, a face and a name, now known by pretty much every man woman and child on the planet. Osama bin Ladin. He two was hiding in caves, opting to brain wash rather than suck. Building and co-ordinating his terror network. Unfortunately again reality didn't quite measure up to the film and we didn't capture the brain bug. In fact he's still alive and free... somewhere. 

SO... Did they predict the future?

No, I'm afraid not. It comes down to this. "Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it." The film is closely based on key world war two events and references with some creative license thrown in for good measure. The big unprovoked attack being Perl Harbour. The invasion, a variation of D-Day, or the landing in Italy, or probably the failure of Operation Market Garden. 

The film is based on sound sociological and psychological reactions, because he saw it happen. Unfortunately we didn't entirely learn from our mistakes. The same or similar mistakes made in the Second World War, Vietnam, Korea, Falkland islands and many more.  

So the REAL question is. When will it happen again?  How long will it take us to forget these things again? After all the true power of terrorism is it's ability to control what we do, move us away from rational thought where we learn and improve and put us in state where knee jerk reactions seem the only rational option. 

What do you think? Be the first to comment on this blog! 

What is a Father?

Hello

Well, there's the obvious answer. A man who generates sperm which inseminate an egg. That's pretty undisputed. 

What is disputed is what should happen next. Is that it? Or should a father mean something more?  

If your father is little more than a sperm donor. What do you owe them? What do they owe you? 

Now I like difficult quesitons, but I've been struggling with these for a number of years and here's where I stand. 

Men have a responsibility for their sperm. If they decide to have unprotected sex then they are accountable for the consequences.  Granted mistakes happen, but then there are a number of measures to prevent these mistakes becoming a life long commitment. So if a couple decide not to correct their mistakes they are making a concious decision to commit to the child. Aren't they? 

Now, I'm quite surprised what a sensitive issue this is as public debates on this issue nearly always seem to devolve into a discussion of "why can't we have single mum's?"and "If the father is a bad person, then the moter has the right to end the relationship". I agree. I don't see there being a problem with either of these. But my question relates more to the father. Why doesn't the father see it as their responsiblity to not be a bad person? Even if the mother and father aren't together why do some fathers think that gets them 'off the hook' as it where and they don't have to care for their kids? 

I love this article. I think it really sums up the crisis of fatherhood society is generating and points out that what we think of as a 'traditional family' isn't so traditional after all!

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1630551,00.html

I find this article facinating as it draws the links between the psychology of the parents and the impacts if has on the children " father-child interactions appear to be central to the development of a child's ability to maintain strong, fulfilling social relationships later in life."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19960501-000041.html

This answer to distant fathers is also quite interesting. 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_children_of_emotionally_distant_fathers_cope_with_their_emotions_and_move_on_to_lead_productive_happy_lives

I'ms getting a little off track... what is a father. Well.. whislt these studies do point out that it's easier for fathers to disconnect emotionally and remove themselves from parenting. I can't help but feel that a REAL father wouldn't. Regardless of the situation. I like the comment "The bottom line is, it's not up to the children to deal with this (parental problems), but either the two parents should grow up and try themselves to deal with their problems." 

There really is a debt of responsibility on the father. A debt that society as a whole tends to let slip. There doesn't seem to be the support structures or role models or even social pressure to be a good father these days. But this isn't a social issue really. I think it's more down to the concions of father. It shouldn't be down to society to 'ok' detatchment from the child. The father should see it as their duty to protect and nurture. Whether that's in a relationship with the mother or not. That's not really the important bit. The important bit is being their for the child. 

What do you think a father is? Or should be? Would you be like your father? 

Is this the start of a New Fascism?

Hey

It's become quite a social fact that after a war society tends to move towards the political left. We beleive we're fighting for something good and just and we want that to be reflected in the way we live our lives. 

Equally during times of economic hardship we tend to move to the political right. We feel insecure and defensive. We tend to revert to tribalism, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism) strengthening our bonds and social identity with specific groups of individuals we can relate to. This can take many differant paths but in recent history the most notable is the national darwinistic approach (or fascism). 

Technically speaking this is Neo-Tribalism "as the culture and institutions of modernism declined, societies would look to the organizational principles of the distant past for guidance"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Tribalism

And of course you also get an increase in religious tribalism

http://www.sociologyguide.com/types-of-society/Characteristics-of-Tribal-Society.php 

It's happened before

1920's Cabaret

Yes, you're probably wondering what on earth this has to do with anything. Well, you're probably familiar with the first and second world wars and you've probably seen loads of films about them. But have you ever really looked into what happened inbetween them in Germany? How did they really go from a defeated and financially ruined country to the biggest threat in Europe in a relatively short period of time? It certainly wasn't a straight line and like much of the world the 1920's was a golden era of liberalism and technological advancement. The cabaret became the blogosphere of it's time with a politics, satire and social debate at the heart of many events (and of course sex at the others, just like the blogosphere :-) ). 

http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/his452/Alcohol/germancabaret.html

Social acceptance of homosexuality

I think this message really captulates just how quickly a society can move to the right and truely catch people out with devistating consequences. 

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/culture/1995/gay.culture.flourished.prenazi.germany-10.95

Key factors

More than ever in my life time society as a whole seems to be reaching out for something. We seem confused about where we go from here. What will global warming mean? what does globalisation mean? What's happening with the economy? Who am I? Where do I fit into society. So more people than ever feel lonely. There are few families with a stable social status and people are much more likely to move to new areas for work. So social bonds aren't that strong right now. Combined with economic hardship and a lack of credible role models it's possible for a strong leader to come to power that will provide a structure and hope that we so desperately need.

Are there signs already?

You may have heard on the new 'British jobs for British workers' not to mention calls for a more'values' driven society over the 13 year old father controversy. 

It couldn't happen now

Yes, standard response, but I can't help thinking if you'd of asked all the financial experts in the world just 3-5 years ago whether we could see another depression I bet they would have said something along the lines of "No, it's not possible, lessons were learn't from the great depression, society and financial models have moved on." Ask them now and they'll tell you there were lots of warning signs that were ignored. The news makes it sound like we were 'obviously' heading for trouble, why did no one realise? 

So my question to you is really, what happens after a financial collapse? What is stopping a repeat of history?

Is Obama the one to unite a strong left and provide the security and answers we need without is reverting to the hard line traditional instincts on the right? 

(Plan to post again with what I think the 'New Fascism' might look like. But feel free to comment on your views. Am I mad?)