On Statistics #5

If you're like me, you'll enjoy the massive contrast from the beginning to the end.

All this philosophical delving is making my brain hurt. Perhaps a lighter topic is in order. Hmmm. Education, education...juice box...mandarin orange....stepladder...stopwatch....homana homana homana homana what to write about...

Something I have always thought about but never thought to write down! Fuck yea! There are many different types of intelligence, and accordingly, there are different types of activities that speak to these different types of intelligence.

Here's my sweeping claim: Those who aren't as smart as others play sports. Those who are smart, in the traditional sense, that is academically intelligent, do not play sports, or to a much lesser degree. I realize that isn't true, you could probably think of a few people that seem to be equally adept at both things just described, but I think there is a correlation between the two. You may be in high school, or have gone though high school. There were groups weren't there? Cliques. Yea, they exist. It's a pretty common social phenomenon. Cliques generally form around shared characteristics, or traits. They tend to dress similarly, listen to the same types of music, enjoy the same activities etc. Is it so ridiculous then to think that these groups also form along the lines of intelligence present among its members? It may not be a conscious observance, such as that of hairstyle, makeup, and the like, but it's still readily noticed when you look just a little bit closer. I realize here too we are talking about humans, most of what I talk about is about humans. I know there are always going to be exceptions. This is soft science, that is, science without any hard and fast rules, only trends and things to suggest there is a correlation between x and y. Right, so we've explained that again.

Smart kids sit up in their rooms and read books. Jocks throw footballs around. Totally sweeping and easily defeated claim. Before you get hasty, a story. Okay so I don't have a story. This is more like a collection of observations that is being haphazardly mashed together for the purpose of this blog. Yay for writing things. Anyways, getting to the observations. (OMFG only 360 words!!!)

Observations about cliques, stereotypes and intelligence, which are connected in some way:

1) To be popular, don't be smart; if you are, don't talk about it, and be socially exclusive
2) To be a nerd, all you have to do is attempt to have an intellectually stimulating conversation, or even ask a question that can't be answered with yes or no
3) To be a dirty, subtract all common sense and understanding of society, refuse personal hygiene, and have sex with random strangers
4) To be a goth/emo/"scene" kid, wear dark clothes and black lipstick, listen to weird bands, get bad grades
5) To be a hipster, go against every social norm, which basically means following trends that aren't popular enough to be called popular o mainstream yet, but popular enough for all the hipsters to notice
6) To be a nobody, don't do anything extraordinary. Don't even talk. Not even to yourself
7) To be an annoying preacher's son/daughter, talk about the sin and filth that exists in the world, and force your religion on other people
8) To be a stupid bitch, lie and cheat your way into a group of friends, and then even though everyone else in the group doesn't like you, force yourself into the group, most often accomplished by more backstabbing/blackmailing/making people choose sides/generally being a shitty human being
9) To be a band geek, be in band
10) To be a jock, play a sport
11) To be a bully, notice all of the lesser stereotypes described, and generally be a dick
12) Couldn't
...   Think
..    Of
.     Any
20) More :/

Thinking of new things to talk about. Contentment, confidence in being an individual. Sounds good.

Where does happiness come from? Why are we happy? Should we be happy? How does one attain a state of happiness? Are success and happiness related? For that to be true one would have to define success, which varies greatly from person to person.

Being happy is often something I have ended for myself by thinking about how I got to be happy. If I'm driving in my car, I might be smiling for no reason. I notice this. Why am I smiling? I may think of what happened that day, if it was a good day, I'm happy about it being a good day, but that happiness has been drowned out, for the moment anyway, by me trying to figure out why exactly I am happy to begin with. The only things that make us happy are within our brains. Love doesn't make us happy, the feeling we experience as a result of certain neurotransmitters being released is what makes us happy. We don't enjoy activities, we enjoy the feelings we get from them, which again is a result of a chemical high we get from inside our own heads. This doesn't make sense! This may seem rash, but I'm hereby formally throwing caution to the wind and just going to spill out everything. Here we go.

As I've already said, we get happy from a series of reactions in our brains. This doesn't make sense. Why does the reaction occur? People get happy when they are physically strained past their limit. Why? What makes sense about that? Some say it's an evolutionary advantage, to negate pain (through happiness) helps one survive/outrun other animals that want to eat them. Why is there pain? Why is there evolution? Where the hell in the universe does it say? This happens because...[meaning of everything ever] Where the hell is that?! Where is the explanation to why? I feel like I'm three years old again, asking my mom or dad "Why?" every time they would explain something. The truth is though, there is no reason why. Doesn't matter what subject matter you start with, you end up at the origins of existence. You end up at consciousness. You end with one massive question mark staring you right in the face, laughing at your attempts to try and figure things out. Sure we have theories, guesses, hypotheses about things, but how accurate are they? A condition of the scientist is to doubt everything, even his own research, in the name of discovering and supporting the theory that is right, the equation that explains it correctly, etc. Even within our us studying ourselves, things like sociology, psychology, economics, we have thought we understood, then drafted again, revised, and published our understanding again, only to find more holes and exceptions in this newly found understanding. We don't know anything. We may think we know things, we may say that we are surely for sure about things, are you really? Do you love your wife? Most men, I hope anyway, would say, "Absolutely, I love her 'til the day I die." I've always thought this was stupid, because they say love is eternal, love transcends reality, is greater than this world, but as soon as the mortal body of one member of a loving partnership expires, that love ends. Stupid. Assuming both of you are alive, though, do you love that other person? Do you? Do you really love him or her? How do you express love? Sex? No, sex is continuing the species, sex is not love. Hearts? Hand-written sentiments? Nope, nope. They can be used to achieve the same end, that is, having sex with someone, presence of love completely subjective, optional, and case-specific. Can you think of anything that would cause you to lose that love? Most people that claim to be in love would say no. I call bullshit on that. You're telling me, that no matter what happens, no matter what that person does to you, no matter what someone else does to you, no matter how your thought process is affected, you're going to love that person? Say a better person comes along, a better match for you, a richer husband, a hotter wife, someone is generally better. Assume they possess exactly the same traits, same quirks, essentially being a clone, only an improved copy, of your current lover. Has that not happened before? Some would argue that if it's true love they will stay together. I say this type of love is not true, but comfortable. Yes, I will concede that two people who truly connect with each other on all the correct levels are probably comfortable with the love they share, they are happy together. However, when two people invest a good deal of time into a relationship, they move in together, what have you, they become attached. It doesn't have to be a loving attachment. It's a condition as humans to attach to things that we are familiar with, things we expose ourselves to. We like being around those things. People get together and they stay together, not always (and I fear much too often) because it's what social groups and peers recommend, what they expect, or because of financial security, because of familiarity. It's too much trouble to end a relationship, to grieve about it, and then find someone else, and repeat. It takes time. Time is something of which we have a finite amount. Even in this day and age when people are being promised 100 years of life, people want to be sure of things, they want their ducks in a row, right now. Back in the day when people lived to 50 (if they were lucky) people didn't wait for their "soulmate" to come along, there was no time! Child had to be born, food to be grown. Marriages were arranged based on practicality. Was there such a thing as divorce? Not any to speak of, that was taboo. People just sucked it up and made babies. There was no time for marital strife. Now, we have all this time. We have time to wait for soulmates. We have time to waffle and change our minds. Divorce is everywhere. People don't want to commit to anything, for fear of losing a better opportunity. I'm an offender, I'll admit it.

Humans, as a species, exist in a condition that tells us to love, (if not love, mate with) suitable members of the opposite sex. If you expose two people too each other for long enough, assuming there are no sharply conflicting personality traits, they will like each other. I speak out of experience. Doesn't what kind of girl I talk to, I can present myself in such a way that causes them to like me, which as you might have guessed, happens along the way to "love". I'm not a pickup artist. I'm not a womanizer. Getting girls to expose themselves to me is not my gig. I'm a philosopher. I know a bit about psychology. I know how to observe people and predict their behavior based on these observations. I'm also blessed with a general lack of ugliness. It does not take much more than cutesy little quips and a go-getter-type attitude to get a girl to type you a little <3, which I guess is my generation's way of expressing love for one and other. Girls can do the same thing. I don't mean to say that men are impervious of becoming infatuated, because we do, all the time. To have a guy drooling over you, sorry ladies but you have to be attractive. Attractive is a term that is not nearly as exclusive in this context as it is in the traditional sense. It varies from guy to guy, obviously, but attractive just means healthy, four limbs, head of hair, all that good stuff. No skin disease. No red-flag abnormalities. (Note: If you think I'm being inconsiderate, hurtful, offensive, or demeaning to those people not blessed with attractive features, you don't have to read this blog. If you're still reading, and you'd like to argue that I am in fact being grossly offensive and demeaning to ugly people, with such things as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and what not, I may concede that yes, beauty is a subjective matter, such is everything with humans. However, in this great thing we call society, among humans in general for that matter, biologically, and speaking with regard to evolutionary advantages, there exists things that are desirable and things that are undesirable. Being healthy is attractive. Having four limbs is attractive. Being physically fit, having a toned body. Even skin, healthy hair, etc. We are trained to notice these things. Men's eyes notice girls' boobs, get over it! We look all the time. Looking doesn't make you a pig, it means you're doing what nature intended. Big boobs = lots of milk. Lots of milk = more food for baby. Food for baby = survival of baby. More food = greater chance of survival. Survival = continuation of species. Continuation of species = goal of every living organism ever. You might argue that because we are as smart as we are, rather as we think we are, we should be able to control such things. Maybe, but to completely resist/avoid such things is impossible, and if by some chance someone were to never eyefuck someone of the opposite sex, they are leading a sad, sad, and very, very guarded existence. As my dad says, "We are a pretty horny bunch." We are! We just want to make all sorts of babies! As if there weren't enough of them alreeady! Feminists, shut up. Anyone else who would like to deny that, just shut up. I don't say shut up because I'm afraid you will destroy my argument; if you were to do that, I'd be very surprised, most notably, but I'd except whatever counterargument you had to substitute. I say shut up because in my experience people that generally want to argue such things just say I'm wrong, and then provide no other explanation. It's part of argument that if you are going to destroy someone's theory, you must provide your own to explain whatever it is you're arguing about. You can't just do away what we do know, or what we think we know, leaving it a mystery, and you can't just say God did it. That is why I say shut up. If you're someone reasonable and willing to discuss any topics covered, I welcome your input.)

I have strayed far from the path I thought I was on. This is the end.