The Geek Gang over at ScienceDaily.com have confirmed what I have long suspected!
As a recent article states, “Thinking about death can actually be a good thing. An awareness of mortality can improve physical health and help us re-prioritize our goals and values, according to a new analysis of recent scientific studies. Even non-conscious thinking about death — say walking by a cemetery — could prompt positive changes and promote helping others.”
Past research suggests that thinking about death is destructive and dangerous, fueling everything from prejudice and greed to violence. Such studies related to terror management theory (TMT), which posits that we uphold certain cultural beliefs to manage our feelings of mortality, have rarely explored the potential benefits of death awareness.
“This tendency for TMT research to primarily deal with negative attitudes and harmful behaviors has become so deeply entrenched in our field that some have recently suggested that death awareness is simply a bleak force of social destruction,” says Kenneth Vail of the University of Missouri, lead author of the new study in the online edition of Personality and Social Psychology Review this month. “There has been very little integrative understanding of how subtle, day-to-day, death awareness might be capable of motivating attitudes and behaviors that can minimize harm to oneself and others, and can promote well-being.”
Thinking about death can also promote better health. Recent studies have shown that when reminded of death people may opt for better health choices, such as using more sunscreen, smoking less, or increasing levels of exercise.
One major implication of this body of work, Vail says, is that we should “turn attention and research efforts toward better understanding of how the motivations triggered by death awareness can actually improve people’s lives, rather than how it can cause malady and social strife.”
Write the authors: “The dance with death can be a delicate but potentially elegant stride toward living the good life.”
The writers of the HBO television show True Blood really outdo themselves when it comes to providing dialogue for Pam, masterfully played by Kristin Bauer.
Here’s a bit of background on the character Pam for those who are not familiar with the program.
A former prostitute during her lifetime, Pam was ‘brought over’ (i.e. made a vampyre) by Eric Northman in the late 1800’s in San Francisco. She was released from Eric sometime in the early decades of 20th century. She has resided in the USA throughout her time as a vampyre. After the Great Revelation when vampyres came ‘out of the coffin,’ Eric called for Pam’s service in the newly founded Fangtasia bar in Shreveport, Louisiana.
Nowadays she serves him willfully and is his second-in-command. She has never , to date, sired a vampyre.*
Here are some of the precious gems that True Blood’s writers have fall from her beautiful, smirking lips.
“I don’t know what it is about me that makes people think I want to hear their problems. Maybe I smile too much. Maybe I wear too much pink. But please remember I can rip your throat out if I need to. And also know that I am not a hooker. That was a long, long time ago.”
“I am so over Sookie and her precious fairy vagina and her unbelievably stupid name. F**k Sookie!”
“I’m gonna shove my fist up your ass and use you as a hand-warmer.”
“Did I miss something? Are we girls now? Did we join a book club and read some queer chick lit memoirs and are bound together by estrogen or sisterhood some other feminist drivel?”
“This is not just about your relationship, you infatuated tween. There’s a bigger picture.”
“Let’s go to the ladies room and stare at ourselves in the mirror.”
Each year, her character becomes stronger, more fleshed out and more interesting… and a lot more fun!
Can’t wait for True Blood Season Five, expected to premiere in June 2012.
Americans are lonelier than ever before, according to a growing body of research. All those “friends” we have on the giant social network may be part of the problem
Is Facebook really making people more lonely? Or are lonely people attracted to Facebook?
These are some of the questions posed by a recent article in TheWeek.com.
This is the paradox of the Facebook age: We have an unmatched ability to connect with other people through social networks, yet we still “suffer from unprecedented alienation,” says Stephan Marche in The Atlantic. Evidence from the growing body of loneliness research seems to suggest that the two trends are almost certainly connected. While American tradition holds that there’s nothing wrong with a little individualistic solitude, the isolation of superficial connections with hundreds of Facebook “friends” might just be too much for us to handle.
(California high school student, Ellie Ritter, talks to her friends through Facebook: A growing body of research suggests that a connection is not the same thing as a bond/confidant. Photo: Lacy Atkins/San Francisco Chronicle/Corbis)
But is it fair to blame Facebook for all this?
Here are some reactions to Stephan Marche’s views…
Lonely people are drawn to Facebook: “Facebook isn’t making us lonely,” says Walter Frick in BostInno. Most research shows, in fact, that already social people are social online, and loners are loners in both real and virtual life. Marche makes a convincing case that “lonely people are more attracted to the internet,” and Facebook can “attract and reflect loneliness.” But if you’re lonely, get offline and go talk to someone face-to-face. Don’t blame the internet. [1]
Facebook is alienating: “Marche’s piece is a riveting read,” and if you don’t think he’s onto something, try Googling “Is Facebook making us lonely?” says Connie Schultz in the Shelby, N.C., Star. You get 7 million hits — clearly plenty of us “have been fretting about our Facebook addiction for some time now.” The problem is that Facebook encourages us to be “phonies,” always relentlessly and annoyingly happy. And without real intimacy, there’s no real friendship. [2]
Loneliness was a problem long before Facebook: The problem with Marche’s central question (“Is Facebook Making us Lonely?”) is that our loneliness epidemic started long before the birth of Facebook, or even the internet, says Jeff Bercovici in Forbes. But Marche’s actual argument is subtler: That Facebook causes some people to get depressed by reading about other people’s purportedly perfect lives. Is that true? I’m not fully convinced, but it’s a great discussion to have, and a great way to sell magazines. [3]
Of all the things a close friend or loved one can do to you, betrayal is one of the worst.
It is the element of breach of trust that cuts deeper than the knife in the back. As the saying goes, “Backstabbers are only powerful when your back is turned.” Why was your back turned? Because you trusted the traitor.
(Brutus about to slay Julius Caesar… the quintessential backstabber)
On a national level, treason is perhaps the worst crime there is. The traitor is betraying the entire country and putting it at risk.
On a personal level, a traitorous friend can destroy your faith in people… or at least in that person. You can become mistrustful of others and be tempted to close yourself off from friends and family.
In addition to whatever actual damage the betrayal costs you physically, psychologically, emotionally, financially, etc. the blow to your spirit can be devastating.
Traitors and backstabbers don’t just affect the people whom they betray… they bring down society as a whole. We want to be truthful, honest and open. We want to be able to trust others. And when a betrayal becomes known, it’s almost as if, even temporarily, a tiny crack forms in what we feel society should be.
We hate them, and rightfully so, because traitors and backstabbers are loathsome creatures whose actions not only hurt the victim or victims of their betrayal… but make our world a bit worse off.
Special thanks to author and screenwriter Michael Plumides. Some of his experiences as a ‘backstabee’ during his years in college radio provided the inspiration for this piece. Thanks, Mike!
One of his greatest accomplishments, in his own opinion, was to be born a Lannister. [1] Son of Tywin Lannister, brother to Lord Jaime Lannister and to Cersei Baratheon (née Lannister), the Queen Regent, uncle to young King Joffrey Baratheon. In addition to being powerful, the Lannisters are rich beyond the dreams of avarice. A common simile in the fictional, fantasy world of Game of Thrones is, “Rich as a Lannister!” Another, more common phrase is, “A Lannister always pays his debts.”
(Lannister sigil: gold lion en passant upon a crimson shield. Motto: Hear Me Roar!)
Drunkard. Whoremonger. Snide. Devious. Condescending. By his own admission, dishonourable. And yet, he is one of the most honourable dishonourable men you will ever meet. Despite his open debauchery (he is most often seen drinking wine and cavorting with prostitutes – often at the same time), he is one of the most moral ‘bad’ people in Game of Thrones.
(Tyrion Lannister and his small army of tribesmen just before the Battle of the Green Fork)
He uses sex and alcohol as a kind of armour or shield. And perhaps it is more like a disguise, as well. It not only hides the ‘real’ person inside but also protects him. He is a complex, multi-layered character. And the last thing he is – is boring. Never a dull moment when The Imp is around, I can promise you that.
Most of all, Tyrion Lannister is just plain fun. He is a joy to watch. Peter Dinklage turns in one brilliant performance after another. If for no other reason, seeing him portray Tyrion is, in and of itself, reason enough to watch Game of Thrones.
Game of Thrones can be seen Sunday evenings on HBO.
There was even a time, way back, when I owned four… count ’em, FOUR… cats.
I’ve had goldfish and turtles. I even had a snake once.
No more.
To this day, in all my life, my best friend in the whole world was a black Labrador retriever named Trista.
The day Trista breathed her last was the day I vowed I would never own another animal, domestic or otherwise.
When she passed away at the age of 13, I came as close as I probably will ever come to having a nervous breakdown.
Relatives of mine have died and I did not weep and sob as much as I did on that day.
I cannot and will not bring myself to do that again. I seriously don’t think I’d be able to handle it.
In the aftermath of Trista’s death, one by one over the course of a few months, I murdered all the plants in my house. All save one, which I tried to kill through active ignorage. The little thing… an aloe… seemed to thrive on neglect.
Eventually, months and months later, I tossed a small glass of water into it, partly out of pity and partly out of curiosity as to what would happen. Within 24 hours the aloe had perked up and started showing signs of life, as if nothing had happened. That spiky-edged little twerp earned her place in my home.
There are certain types of persons who, given any amount of influence, command or authority, become drunk with power.
They get tipsy on tyranny. Pissed on prestige. Soused with strength. Potted on privilege. Muddled with mastery. Smashed on supremacy.
And I am not necessarily talking about those who actually wield supreme executive power. You don’t have to be a tyrant or despot to get loaded on leadership (ok, that was the last one, I promise).
In fact, if anything, there seems to be an inverse relationship betweem the rank of the person and the degree of power or amount of the authority granted… and the corresponding reaction thereto.
In other words, the smaller the person and the more mediocre the rise in power… the more likely it is that said person will behave like some banana republic dictator thereafter.
(‘One Bullet’ Barney)
Picture Barney Fife being made ‘acting Sheriff’ for a week while Andy is away. You get the picture.
While this phenomenon can happen almost anywhere, it often happens in an office setting. A person is given a promotion with the responsibility to supervise and manage his former colleagues. Most people, I am happy to say, perform their new jobs well and are very admirable in the fact that they do not turn into Josef Stalin.
However… every once in a while, someone gets promoted and we discover to our mutual horror that burning within that small, dark heart is a desire to exploit his new-found power and lord it over his former peers.
(Help! I’m being oppressed!)
He sneers at and denigrates those who are now ‘under him.’ He suddenly is too busy to have lunch with his now former friends. He begins to mistreat them, using his position to exact punishment for perceived wrongs done to him in the past, or worse, just for the sick thrill of it.
Just to be clear, I am not talking about someone who has risen to the level of his incompetence, as per The Peter Principle. [1] Someone who is merely incompetent is not, by definition, a cruel overlord. Far from it. Such a person is often a pitiful creature that evokes pathos not hatred.
The person who becomes a bad boss upon being granted power already had dormant within him or her the seeds of evil. It took the granting of authority to water that seed and make it bloom into the vile, carnivorous plant now occupying the manager’s office down the hall.
Underlings feel powerless. They submit to the ill-treatment because they feel there is nothing to do other than leave. And for many, that is simply not an option. They need the job… so will put up with being mistreated because they feel that have to. Some may try to undermine the newly-minted superior and thwart his every plan. Those with connections with upper management may try to crush him from above. Some may try to ‘manage upward’ to limit the danger posed to them (see footnote below). But for the majority of underlings, they look upon their former friend, former colleague, former co-worker and peer with an impotent loathing.
But what of the new bureaucratic oligarch himself? Unlike ‘normal, decent’ management types, he uses his power (or what little influence and authority he now has) as a weapon of oppression, not as a tool to further the interests and ultimately help bring about the success of the enterprise. Part of it could be mere self-aggrandizement, demeaning and snubbing others to make himself feel (or look to others) important as befitting (in his eyes) his new station. But part of it could be something more sinister… a kind of workplace sadism, on a certain level. To that person, inflicting pain is not merely a means to an end… i.e. making others respect his authority; it is an end in and of itself.
Such a person is deserving of the deepest loathing.
We can only hope that their tenure is short-lived. As with the Barney Fife analogy, we all know that Sheriff Andy will be back next week so we try the best to stick it out until Monday.
Until then, those drunk with power earn our contempt… and hatred.
[1] The Peter Principle: “In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” In other words, employees tend to be promoted until they reach a position in which they cannot work competently. The principle holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Eventually they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their “level of incompetence”), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. Peter’s Corollary states that “in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties” and adds that “work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.” “Managing upward” is the concept of a subordinate finding ways to subtly “manage” superiors in order to limit the damage that they end up doing. It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise, which also introduced the “salutary science of hierarchiology.”
No sooner had I finished the DVD Box set ofGame of Thrones than I learned about the April 1, 2012, premier of Season Two!
I don’t own a television (long story) so I decided to see if I could catch a viewing somewhere on-line this morning (April 2). Much to my delight, I was able to do so before any of the copyright people removed it.
Well… let me start off by saying…
Oh… My… Gawd!!
As impressed as I was by the first season, Season Two has certainly taken off from where the first season left off.
Just as spectacular and riveting, just as grand, just as epic and majestic. Great cast, great locations, great sets, costumes, CGI, props… everything. The writing is fantastic and the performances brilliant.
This isn’t really a TV program in the usual sense. The expression I’ve heard is ‘motion picture television’ and I think that phrase is apt. Every aspect of Game of Thrones is just as if it was filmed as a movie. No expense is spared. No corners cut. Production is of the highest quality. It is filmed on location in Northern Ireland, Malta and Iceland.
(Wonderful young actress Maisie Williams as Arya Stark)
One of the best things about Game of Thrones is number of strong, female lead characters in it. For this reason, it has been called by some a ‘feminist’ show. Well, if that means there are a lot of excellent actresses playing many strong key roles in the show, who are given parts with depth and breadth and complexity, well then… I guess it is a feminist show.
(Lena Headley as Cersei Lannister)
After watching Season Two, Episode One this morning, I am even more hooked than I already was.
Game of Thrones is one of the best things on television.
(‘One Bullet’ Barney)
Vampyre Fangs 