Opinion

Take Two #76 Taking the next step to Graduate School

patr — Mon, 13 May 2013 18:47:15 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

I want to start off by saying, my goodness, the weather has been gorgeous lately! An uncanny amount of sun, a bit of precipitation to remind us, yes, we do still live in the northwest – indeed, I do call that gorgeous. I get a little bit of downtime in the afternoon right after classes, and I've been spending it lounging in the back seat of my car with the windows down, sun and a soft breeze, a good book in hand until I inevitably have to leave for my next destination. Perhaps it's a little vagrant-like, but I enjoy it. It's not quite enough time for me to get anything done so it's the perfect excuse for a bit of lazy afternoon. A nice break from all the crazy, so to speak. What's the latest crazy, you ask? I'll tell you: grad school. I set my deadline, and it's fast approaching.

(To clarify for those who may be familiar with application deadlines, I'm applying for spring 2014.)

Preparing and applying to graduate school is a whole different ballgame than applying to undergraduate. Or at least it is for me. Back then I wallowed in the help of Mom. I was so busy with high school and extracurricular activities that I'd wake up for school in tears I was so tired. She took pity on me and basically managed my entire college application process. Once I knew what I wanted to study, we as a family picked out the schools I would apply to. All I had to do was write the essays and sign where Mom told me. She scheduled the campus tours, did all of the financial paperwork – everything. I can now say with absolute certainty that I did not fully appreciate how much she was doing for me. Doing this all myself is unpleasant at best and terrifyingly intimidating at worst.

I had one particularly terrifying moment when I realized a sister campus of my top pick grad school was being sued by its student body. That started a wonderful snowball of self-doubt about my future and just how well I knew what I was doing.

When applying for undergrad, I felt like I was embarking on a scholarly journey of intellectual discovery. I could do anything, be anything, and study whatever I found fascinating. It wasn't exactly a pragmatic game plan, though I wouldn't have listened if you'd told me so at the time. My aspirations were unrealistic not because I was reaching beyond my capabilities but because I had very little understanding of myself and what I thought I wanted. More specifically, though I knew what I could do, I didn't yet know what I was and was not willing to do in service of those goals.

In my case, I thought I could grit my teeth and bare the rat race that is the film industry. See, I love the artistry that goes in to writing and making movies, but I hate the social-political juggling you have to do to get yourself working on a film set in the first place. Turns out that when you begrudge the road you're walking on, you have a tendency to wander off for any excuse. It doesn't exactly make for quick or easy traveling.

That distinction between can and will cannot be overemphasized. Yes, I can probably become an astronaut if I want to. I am, however, completely and utterly unwilling to undertake that adventure. A personal pet peeve of mine actually is (and this will be ironic for a columnist) people who rant and rave about everything wrong with the world and then do nothing. I know and know of far too many people who 'know' how to fix the world but do absolutely zilch to implement their proposed solution. To borrow a buzz word, in America we're all about empowerment. But empowerment isn't thinking about change, it is actually making that change. What are you willing to do to empower yourself?

When facing down my graduate school options, I try to picture myself in ten and even twenty years. What are my best prospects with each program? What do I need to get there? And is any of that something that I am willing to do? I haven't made up my mind yet, but thinking through each option like this helps keep me from being overwhelmed. If you have any looming life decisions, give it a try. It certainly can't hurt. And the best part is you can even do this lounging in the sun.

Take Two #75: Medicine Losing the Big Picture

patr — Mon, 06 May 2013 16:03:09 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

Does technology make people dumber? Normally I'd vote 'no.' I love technology and believe it allows us to challenge our brains in new ways. I mean, yes, every once in a while I catch myself entering 2+4 or 6x6 into a calculator and then have to momentarily hang my head in shame. But for the most part, I am very pro tech. Recently, I had an experience that made me question that belief. It was... a doctor's visit.

Doctors and medical professionals are supposed to be really smart. They have to study all the natural sciences, research and mathematics, be able to step back and see a whole picture out of numerous symptoms like one of those crazy murals made out of thousands of tiny photos (called photo mosaics). This is traditionally a field for smart people. Well, my friends, that tradition may be slipping. And among other things like failing financial motivation (the true brains go into finance or super specialize now) and medical insurance soul-sucking booby-traps, I blame technology.

My opinion may surprise those of you that know I come from a medically inclined family. For those who don't know, my mom's a nurse and my dad's a doctor. As an infant, my dad literally carried me in a backpack as he made his hospital rounds. My after-school routine for most of grade school involved some form of a medical staff lounge. I learned how to file charts as a hobby. I was even a diabetes finger-stick guinea pig when my parents first opened their private clinic years ago. (I still love holding that over their heads.) You get the picture.

Up until a couple years ago I'd been ensconced in the caring hands of R.N. Mom and Dr. Dad – both of whom are a bit old-school and very good at what they do. Being forced to leave the nest by my medical insurance came with a bit of culture shock. Here's where I started finger-pointing at technology.

It's well established that everything in the body is connected. That's why so many institution marketing teams are pushing what should be the redundant monicker 'holistic healthcare.' And there are many studies on information retention and critical thinking that prove actively engaging with the data is crucial. So tell me, when a medical professional takes notes on your condition via selecting the pre-set, best-fit categories from a computer drop-down menu, how is this engaging with the 'whole' picture at all?

I mean come on, the only skills exhibited by the medical assistant during my last doctor's visit were using velcro, hitting a power button and approximate transcription. I'm not saying she, herself, is dumb in any way. I'm saying that the standardized, automated routine has allowed her to disengage her brain.

One of my most memorable doctor's visit was at my college campus's medical center. My knee had been really hurting (love those high intensity sports). I wanted to see what the on-campus doc would recommend. Well, the first thing he did was take a look at my knee and go (I kid you not), “What is that?” Um, sir, that's my swollen tendon. It's what I'm here to be seen for? We didn't exactly progress from there.

I recently had a comparable experience. Coming out of this doctor's office (I haven't been able to see my doctor in a year) I had in my possession a referral for a surgery I didn't need or want, a referral for physical therapy I also didn't need or want, a referral to a specialist who later had no further information for me, an online printout about a condition that I didn't have, and a cure-all heavy hitting medication because my doctor didn't know what was wrong with me. I felt like jumping and flailing my arms in the air yelling, “Here! I'm right here!” I came in with four issues, was seen for three, stumped the doctor on two, and received treatment for one.

Maybe I'm just being harsh – it wouldn't be the first time. Or maybe we're nudging our medical system in the wrong direction. Remember that photo mosaic reference I made earlier? Well instead of seeing the big picture, our current mainstream approach to medicine is sorting each of the tiny photos by date, size, color and resolution. What we end up with is several well-organized but meaningless lists, and we've lost the big picture entirely.

Take Two #74: Can we Patent the Human Genome?

patr — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:54:05 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

I apologize for missing all of you last week. I was finally moving out of my dad's house (an ongoing process) and simply ran out of time. I have now officially wedged my way into a three bedroom bachelor pad – yup, that's me and two of my male friends. My first new purchase of the apartment was a garbage can. You read that right. For several months they had been keeping trash in a slowly dying hamper. The lidded trash can has so far been a vast improvement. I'll keep all of you posted. I'm sure to collect many more interesting tales as time goes on.

But that's not what I want to discuss this week. This week I want to talk genetics, specifically the human genome. If you're at all the science-fiction fanatic I am, genetic enhancements are nothing new to you. Humans with hawk-like eyesight, superhuman hearing, or even no need to ever sleep are the sci-fi future's norm. If this is Greek to you, consider the current cinematic franchise known as the Avengers. Heard of the Hulk or Captain America? Those special serums that oomph'ed those men up to super-soldier status were genetic A-bombs.

Now imagine a world in which each of these genetic upgrades is patented. The Hulk is abruptly sporting “Novartis” in bold across each torn trouser leg, and Captain American is suddenly “The New and Improved Captain Pfizer!” Doesn't have quite the same ring, does it? And it begs the question of what his new emblem would be... moving on.

In this world, the human genome has been sliced and diced into its itty bitty individual genes and parceled out like so much land. Our bits and pieces are now thoroughly owned and patented by institutions. But wait! You can't patent nature, right? Otherwise Einstein and his descendents would be rolling in the dough from that little 'invention' of his known as e=mc2. Well, the answer is 'sort of.' As long as that bit of nature has been altered enough by human intervention, it can be owned. And someone along the lines of legal history (Judge Learned Hand in Parke-Davis v. H.K. Mulford) decided that as long as a chemical is removed from the human body, juggled and repackaged it's fair game.

What if, in this hypothetical future, an institution patents a specific mutation you just happen to come by naturally (what if X-Men become a reality)? Are you born with “Sanofi” stamped across your forehead? Well, it will probably depend on the legal precedent.

So why am I talking about this? Because so is the Supreme Court. As of April 15th, the case of Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) v. Myriad Genetics landed itself firmly in their supremely capable hands. Myriad Genetics is defending its right to patent two genes that directly impact a woman's chance of developing breast or ovarian cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2. The plaintiffs, AMP along with university researchers and women suffering from these diseases, claim these patents are invalid and furthermore in violation of human civil rights.

To be clear, by patenting these genes, Myriad owns the rights to any and all research, tests and information pertaining to BRCA1 and 2 and any chemical containing “at least 15 nucleotides” (the basic structural units of DNA) of the BRCA 1 gene. Keep in mind these genes are directly related to cancer. Does this bode well for the company's economic success? Most definitely. The company charges $3,000 per test when estimates show the actual cost being around $200. Progress and patient well-being? Not so much.

The case rests almost entirely on whether or not Myriad Genetics can prove they have sufficiently altered the genes in question by isolating them from the entirety of the human genetic code. The company lawyers compare their BRCA genes to a wooden baseball bat, saying that a baseball bat is nothing more than a bit of fancy wood removed from a tree. Um... no. Following this logic, Myriad is patenting the bat, the wood, the trees – everything but the whole forest.

Did these lawyers actually look at the original wooden baseball bat patent before throwing this example out there? I did – filed in 1902 for those who are curious. The patent is all about geometry, the design of the baseball bat. Nowhere does it say anything about exclusive rights to the wood.

I think the whole issue is ridiculous, and yet I must be missing something because the case has made it all the way up the ladder. Plus other countries around the world have allowed institutions to patent human genes. These countries, however, have strict and specific policies similar in spirit to our Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 (commonly called the “Progress Clause”) that allows research to continue unhindered. But for that to work here in the US, as pointed out by NPR, we would need “an active Congress.”

Take Two #73: A New Look at Twenty-somethings

patr — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:23:29 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

Some morning last week, I was driving peaceably along I-5 S when it felt like the bottom dropped out of my car. My smooth, new-tires-for-the-first-time-in-my-life commute suddenly turned into a jarring, jerky ride over massive invisible train tracks. I then vibrated my way over to the shoulder and proceeded to get friendly with AAA.

Turns out a major bearing in my main driveline broke. The main driveline is essentially what connects the engine to your driving tires (everything after the transmission) – it's kind of important. Following that, car part mix ups and whatnot left me Metro bus bound for the next seven days, which gave me plenty of time to read.

Conveniently, my boyfriend had just lent me clinical psychologist Dr. Meg Jay's new book The Defining Decade: Why your twenties matter and how to make the most of them now. In it, Dr. Jay draws on her extensive experience counseling twenty-somethings to correct several of the social myths that have been driving us into the ground. It hit incredibly close to home. Just pages into the forward, a well of emotion hit me right in the chest. Finally someone besides my peers understood. It was a relief. A breath of truth.

That said, the book is not a soft pat on the back. It's a hard shove forward. Thirty is not the new twenty. Biology and time just don't work that way despite everything that popular culture would have us believe. Your twenties are likely not going to be the best years of your life. They are hard, stressful and anxiety-ridden, full of paralyzingly important decisions. Confidence does not come from the inside out. Confidence only comes with skill and experience, and that comes with time. Telling us we can accomplish anything we want just leaves us with the glaring question of 'what do we want?' And last but not least, we are not all perfect and unique little snowflakes. But we are adults – something that cutesy phrases likes 'adultescence' would have us forget.

Essentially yes, we have been lied to our entire lives. Every ounce of culture that feeds the illusion that our twenties are about wandering soul-searches, partying, casual relationships and low-brain, low-potential, low-wage, low-investment jobs has lured us into a dissonant trap of frustration and complacence. Sure, all of those things can be fun and have their places, but if that's all your life has going for it you're just treading water in the overall arc of your life. (Of course that's assuming you want your life to eventually include a good, steady job and a family.)

I said earlier that it was a relief to finally realize that someone outside of my generation understood. What I meant by that was acknowledgement. What many of us want is simply that: acknowledgement that we've been lied to and are scrambling to make up for our false expectations. It's a steep learning curve, but that doesn't mean we're hopeless or helpless. We might just need someone like Dr. Jay to give us that honest and understanding kick into gear before we find our way. She's saying, 'Yes, life isn't the cake you were promised. Now it's time to get over it and move onward.' That seemingly little thing can mean so much when you're used to feeling or being told that the problem might just lie with you.

On the other hand, I also felt better after reading her book because I do have a plan and I am actively following it through. Further, it's okay that things aren't coming together as they're 'supposed to' right now. That doesn't happen until much later. And that's okay. The twenties are fun. This odd stage of uncertain early adulthood is a time of exploration and open opportunity. It can just also royally suck. Reading Dr. Jay's book rewired my perspective, and I'm better for it.

Even though the book is written specifically for twenty-somethings, I recommend it to anyone who regularly interacts with one. It has the potential to be a very valuable window into a mindset you only thought you knew. It was to me.

Ideas with Attitude: How do You Stop Wars?

Ty Swenson — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:32:53 +0000

I once asked some kindergarten children that question and out of the mouths of babes came some very interesting solutions. One little one said, “Send up a surrender flag and you stop and they stop.” Another idea was, “Send up a balloon and drop a man dressed up scary and they will stop.” Oh, to return to the simplistic view of humanity such as a five year old maintains. Just think, a preschool child develops empathy but as society exercises more restrictions, empathy sometimes goes underground. Maintaining empathy might change the world and be what might solve our tendency to wage wars.

Another five year old solution is, “All the men could throw their guns away and never use them again.” You have probably read about an earlier war when both sides threw down their weapons at Christmas and celebrated together. Too bad Christmas was finally over and they dutifully picked up their weapons and dived into their respective trenches. Conditioning males to be warriors who kill on command and conditioning females to put childbearing as their principal role in society is not working.

The increasing number of young warriors coming home with PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) is a sign that we either must steel young men to fight to the end without trauma to their own psyches or build a more peaceful society that does not require men to prepare to kill without remorse. Allowing females to join the warring males in the trenches is not the answer. Instead of women learning to accept the role of warrior in the man’s world, perhaps men should learn to accept their softer side, as it were, and learn about peacemaking and nurturing.

We are humans first and foremost. We all have brains and need to use them. I have always contended that the deepest divide is the divide between the sexes. Until we can be humans together without the stereotyped roles that we have been taught to play, things won’t change. Young men will continue to heed the call to war and young women will continue to be on the lookout for a male to support their childbearing role and cheer the males from the sidelines. Unfortunately culture and conditioning stand in the way of accepting a simple solution. We are at a point in civilization in which the cost of wars has engulfed us so completely that only another war will excite us to action and remove our worry over yet more war debt to pay off.

So is what we learned in kindergarten to be ignored? Are we to perennially heed the call of the war drums? Every president knows that a war is protection from censure. While a war is being waged one dare not criticize the leader but instead we must support the commander in chief until the conflict is ended. With our present leader representing a party opposite from the majority in the US House of Representatives, it is my hope that he will not resort to entering yet another war to keep the heat off his own presidency. If we truly want to live in a democracy then it is up to each one of us to see that we find a way to bring our past mistakes into focus so that we don’t repeat them. Complaining about the cost of living or the problems in our schools is simply complaining about ourselves. We the people have the means to control our own society. We need to take personal responsibility in maintaining adequate school systems and needed services for all citizens as a first priority. Avoiding another war might be a good start.

Georgie Bright Kunkel is a freelance writer who can be reached at 206-935-8663 or gnkunkel@comast.net.

SLIDESHOW: Take Two #72: Sakura-Con 2013

Ty Swenson — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:23:17 +0000

Yes, it happened again. Seattle was invaded by the freaky, the geeky, the nerdy – in other words the coolest of all people. Easter weekend the Seattle Convention Center played host to Seattle's 16th annual anime convention otherwise known as Sakura-Con. First starting out as Baka!-Con in 1998 at Tukwila's Double Tree Hotel, this geeky gathering has grown into one of the anime conventions in the U.S.

So what goes on during these three days of crazy? Well, for one thing, it's a celebration of all things anime. Anime refers specifically to Japanese animation (cartoons) but generally refers to both the cartoons and graphic novels (comics) of any asian origins. Commonly included among the Japanese products are now also Korean and Chinese. I've even seen a few European contributions on the rare occasion. And while US comics such as those published by Marvel and DC (The Avengers and Batman for respective examples) are found in the mix, do not mistake the differences – the serious fans of each will not forgive you.

Most of what makes up Sakura-Con is Japanese: music, culture, clothing, etc. After all, the cartoons and comics are distinctly Japanese so of course its avid consumers would learn to appreciate the culture as well. At the convention there are theaters playing anime 24 hours a day, vendors selling their wares, both Japanese and American anime voice actors signing autographs, Japanese pop and rock music concerts, elaborate costumes, gaming rooms, educational panels, a couple raves and even a masquerade complete with gowns, masks and fancy dancing.

In years past I was an avid attendee. I'm a cosplayer (costume + play = cosplay), meaning that I'm one of those folks dressed up in bizarre and (hopefully) spectacular costumes. Those costumes are in imitation of characters found in fictional media and often handmade by the wearer. I lucked out this convention with some serious media coverage, and you can actually see my Emma Frost cosplay on the websites for King5, Komo4 and The Stranger. Go figure that my Game of Thrones cosplay of Margaery Tyrell, which took far more time to sew but is far less flashy, didn't make the cut.

This year I had the privilege of being one of the three judges of Sakura-Con's cosplay contest. That involved eight hours of private cosplay evaluations Day 1 and several hours Day 2 for the actual show. I had an absolute blast doing it and met some incredible cosplayers in the process. Normally the cosplays entered are all pretty good with a couple standing head and shoulders above the rest. This year was an entirely different story with nearly every entrant having some completely wow worthy element. The bar is definitely getting higher.

Having those eight hours on Day 1 was crucial. Each entry – either group or individual – had 15 minutes to explain to us just why their costume(s) deserved to win. They had previously submitted reference images of the character and progress photos as proof they had made the costume(s) themselves. We were judging on the quality and creativity of the construction and how thoroughly the cosplayer(s) had replicated the original character(s). To answer a frequently asked question, tackling a really complicated costume doesn't guarantee a win. Sometimes it's better to know your limits, to pick a simpler costume but to make it impeccably.

The competition this year did not make choosing winners easy. We had massive props, beautifully made ceremonial kimonos, costumes and props wired with LED lights, a homemade helmet that opened and closed with little servo motors, one trio even had someone in a full-body, realistic animal suit that another of their party could ride! The only word I have for it all is “fun.”

Having now attended both, I think Sakura-Con has a slightly younger and goofier crowd than Emerald City ComiCon. Both are all kinds of entertaining but have different vibes. If you didn't get a chance to attend either one this year, I recommend at least passing through next year. Let the surreal atmosphere wash over you and enjoy because, as I've learned over my years of attendance, the only reason worth going for is to have fun.

'To view more of Chris' photographs, go to his flickr by clicking here.

Take Two #71: Do Online Classes Work?

patr — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:53:29 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

Already inspired to write on the questionable effectiveness of online classes by a recent Seattle Times article, I suddenly found myself with a much more personal connection to the issue this week. By now I should be done with my first ever online class. I should be riding that week of post-finals high before the drudgery that is every new quarter's 'Week 1.' But I'm not. Instead, I made a mistake I have never, ever done before. I missed a Final Exam. I mean completely missed it. I mistook the date by an entire seven days. So rather than being pleasantly relaxed, I am now cresting on a wave of self-directed anger and panic, anxiously awaiting the gavel that will either be my professor's mercy or not.

Here's how it happened. My class covers two units a week. Each unit has a reading, a powerpoint presentation, at least one video and at least one assignment. All that is required of us is to submit our assignments on time. That means accessing the class website twice a week to turn in our assignments and that's it. We have no set online class time. There are no active discussion forums. And our teacher has no office hours to speak of. If we have questions, we post them on the website or email our teacher and wait the average two days for a reply (not super effective when each unit takes approximately 3-4 days total).

I misread the layout of our assignment list and somehow got it in my head that our final exam fell after our last assignment was due. That was not correct. Because I only have to access the website twice a week, I didn't notice my error until I was verifying that we didn't have one last assignment due before what I believed to be our exam date. This was three days after the last time slot allotted for taking the final and nearly a full week after the first time slot. Completely my fault, I know. This is one of those mini life failures you don't ever want to admit you were stupid enough to do. So of course here I am sharing it with... well, everyone. That's what I get for being a writer. My whole life ends up on paper eventually.

Anyway, I've now thrown pride to the wind and am grovelling before my professor as best I can via email. I hope she's still checking it now that the class is technically over because I have no other way of contacting her. Like I've said, I know this is my fault. But this would never have happened in a face-to-face classroom with peers and a professor more real than a name in Helvetica size 11 font. I'm desperately hoping that my, up until now, glowing track record holds some weight, but I'm no more real to my professor than she is to me. We have made no tangible connection. I have no idea if she even knows that “Kyra-lin Hom” is a good student without checking her online grade book first. And for the record, this was not a freebie course. Insert expletive here.

At the heart of this matter is the same problem that study after study is finding with online classes: the students taking them are 100% on their own. There is no external encouragement, motivation or pressure to do well in a class, learn the material (very much not the same thing), keep track of class events (oops), or even finish the class at all. There is no support network. How often in school did you forget a test or an assignment only to have a friend remind you just in time? That's not going to happen here. It can't.

Don't get me wrong, online classes are hugely convenient for people with irregular or busy schedules like myself. Also, every online school and professor has its/her/his own style of teaching same as traditional learning. Some classes might as well be self-study with a colorless AI moderator. Others are engaging and life altering. My mom's online classes are very different from mine and my friend's very different from hers.

That said, the numbers are in. Online classes on average result in less effective teaching, higher rates of plagiarism and extremely low completion rates. The hope that cheaper and free online classes will narrow the education gap is turning out to be, so far, little more than myth.

Look at it this way, most people who have difficulty with school have problems with motivation and organization. Now what ever made professors believe that a new education system reliant entirely upon self-motivation and self-organization would catch them up? I'm not saying that online classes can't work. I'm saying that they're a great idea but we need to rethink how to teach them. Teachers have to be dedicated. Too often they can coast through these classes with a few clicks and the occasional checking of their email. That just doesn't make for good education.

So let's not get over-excited about this system just because it's shiny and new. If online education is supposed to be the fresh, progressive and egalitarian classroom let's make sure that's what it actually is before we over sell. Convenient? Yes. Effective? Questionable. Even more so than traditional education, you get out of this exactly what you put in. No more, no less.

Take Two #70: Children on Loop

patr — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:30:21 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

If you've ever been around children, you've probably noticed that they can watch the same movie or read the same book or play the same game again and again pretty much indefinitely. As of this week, my niece's favorite movie is Dumbo. Her favorite game involves pretending she's the mommy and I'm the baby, tucking me into 'bed' and turning out the lights only to turn them back on for 'morning' moments later. Over and over again. And she's also discovered a love for putting VHS tapes and DVD's into their respective players then taking them out. Ad infinitum.

While this does make for some easy babysitting for me, I'd rather pass a volleyball back and forth or shoot baskets with her mini hoop. Instead I'm tucked under a makeshift blanket, riding the precarious line between pretending to be tired and actually falling asleep. She was very put out the one time I did fake unconsciousness. Her 'wake up' techniques were vigorously effective.

About round 15 of her new 'time for bed' game, I realized, 'Hey, I'm studying psychology. I bet developmental psychology has something to say about this.' Plus I can't be the only one wondering just what is so darned mesmerizing about Dumbo and his adorable floppy ears – or the DVD player for that matter. So as per usual, I did a little digging.

Most people, including most developmental psychologists it turns out, believe that this is simply a result of the way children learn. The current leading theory for children's cognitive development is still based in the groundbreaking work of Jean Piaget from the early to mid-twentieth century. According to Piaget, children go through four stages of cognitive development. From birth to about two years is the sensorimotor stage (learning through touch). From two years to about six or seven is the preoperational stage (intuition over logic, pretend play). From seven to around 11 years old is the concrete operational stage (thinking logically about concrete events). And then from about 12 onwards is the formal operational stage of learning, during which we develop the capacity for abstract thought.

Prior to the concrete operational stage (birth to about seven years), children are extremely intense sponges. They learn best through observation and interaction with their world. Thus, say many professionals, children are going to obsessively do or watch one thing over and over again until they truly 'get it.' Furthermore, there is evidence that this is a good thing. Children – just like grown ups – do learn new information better with repetition. With children however, because they can't synthesize information especially well yet, repeating the exact same material is better for learning than reading/watching/doing similar but different material.

Sounds solid enough. But something else was niggling my brain – something I'd read before but couldn't quite recall. Then I found a video lecture online at UCTV.TV (University of California Television) called “Insights into the Mind of the Child.” Around minute 45, I had my eureka. See, whereas us adults might watch a program or read a book again to recapture the emotional ride it took us on the first time, children literally do not understand that the same outcome is dead set to happen this time.

Because children are programmed to interact with their environment, they are constantly looking for the cause and effect and learning from what they perceive. So yes, my niece does remember that the last time she watched Dumbo, the clumsy baby elephant found his happy ending. Yet this knowledge has no bearing for her on what is going to happen the next time she watches the very same film. She is actively interacting with the story in front of her, engaging and subconsciously studying the ups and downs new every time.

Understanding this now, I feel bad all those times I didn't take her fear of Mufasa (Lion King) seriously. It just slipped my grasp entirely that she really didn't know what was going to happen next since she'd seen the movie about 20 gazillion times. Everyone out there now sharing in my guilt, rest easy. Children learn from us too. Telling them not to be afraid because they already know what happens isn't a bad thing. Just don't expect them to take your words to heart.

What they will take to heart is the story of the hour (week/month/etc.). So while mindless entertainment may be just that for us, it's never that for children. Evidence proves that what we expose our kids too has lasting effects. Something to think about the next time you reach for the remote.

Take Two #69: Benevolent Sexism

patr — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:35:10 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

To continue from last week, though I had a lot of fun, I sadly never got to meet Gillian Anderson at Emerald City Comicon. You know those 6-inch heels I mentioned before? Well, those had something to do with it. Turns out I'm good for about two hours in those shoes. After that, chairs become my very best friends. I learned this smack in the middle of the massive dealers' hall without a public chair in sight. I did, however, manage to convince what turned out to be the Playboy Comics booth to lend me a chair. I did not actually know whose generosity I was partaking of until I was good to stand again and the comic artist wanted to take a picture with me. So I think a photo of me is on that blog somewhere. I aimed for 90's feminism and found Playboy. I'm not sure how I feel about that...

Speaking of, I learned a new term this week. Apparently first coined in 1996, the technical phrase is “benevolent sexism.” Heard of it before? Traditionally it's defined as a particular brand of sexism marked by overly paternal attitudes toward women, subtly treating them like children. It is often disregarded by both involved parties “because of it's ostensibly positive qualities.” I'd like to expand this definition to include overly maternal attitudes toward men as well – that way I'm not leaving anyone out.

Essentially, what benevolent sexism boils down to is not respecting the genders and encouraging gender roles whether consciously or not (i.e. weakness and softness in women and slobbish invulnerability in men). For instance, thinking women are pure and should be put on a pedestal from whence they can cook, clean, look pretty and not tax themselves with hard things like math and mechanics. Or to keep things even, another example is belittling men when they mangle laundry or want to talk about their feelings. Benevolent sexism is an attitude. (And yes, men and women can just as easily target their own gender too.)

Here's a recent instance from my life. During a kids' martial arts class, a father was egging on his son by saying, 'you hit like a girl.' I take exception to that. The comment wasn't meant to give offense, but it put down every little girl in that dojo. A comment like that encourages the idea that girls don't need to throw in their all because quality results aren't expected of them anyway. A learned helplessness, so to speak. And besides, I hit harder than that dad.

Back to Gillian Anderson and her starring role in the X-Files. Watching the series now makes me nostalgic for 90's female characters. You just don't see roles like Dana Scully or Captain Janeway anymore – power roles that just happen to be played by women. Roles that don't hinge on some aspect of femininity. Don't get me wrong, I love Once Upon A Time's main character Emma Swan (not to mention their updating of Snow White). She's a bounty hunter, the sheriff and overall tough as nails. But her role – the actual role her character plays in the overall story – is dependent on her status as a mother. A man couldn't play her role. It just wouldn't work. Plus that would break the long line of Disney princesses.

This distinction is important and remains the reason why we won't think twice about a mostly male cast but will definitely notice a female-heavy show like Once Upon a Time. Strong, potentially gender neutral roles almost always go to men unless the show is actively trying to hit a political correctness quota. Though I will say lately I've been pleased to see hints of the contrary.

A parallel situation, though dealing with race and not sex, arose while I was working on the short film Fortune Hunters a few years back. It's an adorable romantic comedy about a Chinese young man and his yellow-fevered girlfriend. The entire plot depends on him and his family being Chinese. Yet when the producers pitched the film to the major production houses in Hollywood, one of the first questions asked was if the character could be made Caucasian to make the film more marketable. Are you kidding me?!

Maybe it's asking to much for men and women to respect each other and themselves in full measure. I'd like to believe that's not true, but we have a long way to go. We're at tolerance right now. We can, for the most part, put up with each other. Congratulations. Now can't we do any better than that?

Take Two #67: The Crafters' War

patr — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:17:01 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

For this week, I'm pulling from writer Roya Wolverson's Time Magazine article “The Handmade Wars.” For those who are curious it's from this year's February 18th issue. In it she deals mainly with the website Etsy.com, it's users and its creators and maintainers.

Think of Etsy as a kind of ebay for craftspeople. Each craftsperson can set up their own online store, advertise, accept payment, etc. In turn, anyone can then set up an account with Etsy and browse/buy from these individual stores.

In Wolverson's article, she addresses the issue of just what constitutes 'handmade.' As much as we'd like to believe it's an eccentric artist slaving away in their bohemian studio apartment, Etsy's new leadership is bending the rules. More room is being made for collectives, allowing these mini businesses to grow and expand – and in turn make more money for Etsy.

As a user of Etsy myself, I'm not entirely comfortable with this shift. I run a little shop selling geek-themed accessories. I take in about $300 profit a month. It's not a lot, but I'm certainly not complaining. How many crafters can say their artistic endeavors actually make money instead of drain it? That said, one of the reasons I love Etsy is that everyone who shops there knows what they're getting in to.

Homemade items are more unique, creative and customizable. They are also more expensive. Why? Because for example, my version of bulk buying is in the hundreds of units – not the hundred-thousands. Individuals like myself can't purchase materials as cheaply as manufacturers nor can we stamp out thousands or even hundreds (or tens) of units a day. Each item we make takes skill, practice and our own personal time. Yes, prices on Etsy can fluctuate to an irritating degree, but there is still room for everyone's prices to be competitive in a way that isn't possible when you introduce bigger businesses.

Creating wiggle room for larger enterprises has the potential to change all of that – not something I'm eager to see. Not only is it frustrating from a small seller's point of view, but it is also deceptive for customers. People come to etsy expecting something personally hand-crafted and original. They aren't looking for, say, mass produced items 'embellished' by hand. I'm not saying artists have to be stretching their own canvases or grinding their own pigments but they also shouldn't be adding the 'finishing touches' to non-original prints and then labeling the pieces as handmade works of art. Or as is becoming the case, paying other people to make their designs. There are other forums for that. Etsy shouldn't be one of them.

Begrudgingly, I do understand sellers' need for the expansion. If I suddenly started selling thousands of dollars worth of product, I wouldn't want to leave my Etsy customer base either. If Etsy wants to change its business model, it should create an off shoot website just for these burgeoning small businesses or at least design different store fronts that distinguish between the size of the stores' operations. An entirely different color scheme or layout is something customers can't easily miss – unlike the few lengths of text that are encouraged now. As it is, customers have often missed store announcements emblazoned banner-style across my store front. Requirements like this would keep sellers honest and leave less room for buyer confusion.

Maybe it's just my perspective, and I wouldn't feel the same way if my business began picking up. But as far as I'm concerned, Etsy began as a forum for not just the handmade but the homemade. It's a place where people can sell baked goods out of their own kitchen or jewelry hammered out in their garage. Etsy connects loner artists with customers looking for just that touch of hands on authenticity. It would be a terrible shame for them to give that up.

Take Two #66: Violence Video, Violent Viewers

patr — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:55:06 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

Does viewing violence in media trigger violent action? In high school, I wrote a column on the correlation between violent video game play and violent behavior. I polled several of my high school peers (both genders) on their beliefs in regards to the topic as well. What I found was that, despite evidence suggesting that violent video games and violent behavior activate the same areas in the brain, my peers, who regularly played these kinds of games, did not believe that the two were related. An interesting little bit of self-blindness there.

It's now about six years later. New research has been done, new information is available, and I have a degree in film. Combine that with my online psychology class currently covering developmental psychology (including the influence of violent media) and I felt the sudden urge to revisit the topic.

It turns out that the debate is still as fresh as ever. New studies have shown that consuming violent media does consistently increase a viewer's aggression, desensitization to violence and apathy toward victims. This change is more pronounced in men than in women. It doesn't matter if that media is film, TV or video games. For example, a study in 2009 showed that individuals who had just watched a violent film were less likely to help an injured woman than individuals who had watched a non-violent film. Notice that this influence extends beyond aggressive tendencies and into how we relate to others in daily situations.

But the caveat is that the duration of this effect is questionable. This is especially true when studying adults. Depending on the study, this mood adjustment lasts anywhere from a half a year to just a few minutes. Plus, there is no dependable data that links violent media to violent crime. I mean, statistically homicide rates tend to double after TV is introduced to a culture, but critics rightly point out that correlation doesn't mean causation. There could be any number of compounding factors.

Children however are much more malleable. Back in 1961 Albert Bandura showed rather decisively that children internalize observed behavior, particularly the behavior of figures they look up to. Another interesting bit of research from 2011 found that people in general are more vulnerable to violence priming when the observed violence is a) performed by an attractive individual, b) believably 'justified,' c) goes unpunished, and/or d) causes no explicitly visible pain or harm. I think that puts us three-quarters of the way to an American feature film, don't you?

In that same vein, not all violent media is 'bad.' An increase in video game specific research is revealing that these games can teach empathy just as well as apathy and can be a healthy outlet for built up aggression. Case in point, role playing games (as opposed to first person shooters) involve friendship, cooperation, trust and teamwork both with other online players and computer generated characters. The better the game design, the more realistic the situations. Playing these games can actually improve social behavior. And as far as being an emotional outlet, when a violent game is played with the goal of releasing aggression rather than engaging in it, playing the game does become a kind of catharsis.

It's pretty clear that watching Shoot 'em Up or Saw V isn't going to turn you into a psychopath. But it is quite possible that watching these movies will put thoughts in your head that you might not have had otherwise thus priming you to react more violently in stressful situations. Science is both incredibly imprecise and extremely demanding so it's refusing to conclude one way or the other. Marketing and the military don't have quite the same compunctions.

Consider that the military uses war-simulating video games to recruit future soldiers. Or that pilot-training flight simulators would be right at home in a large arcade. Or that billions of dollars is funneled every year into media advertising and political campaigns because research supports the effectiveness of mere product exposure. Now tell me, how is violence less seductive than a balding, middle-aged man showing he really understands? It's not.

For one reason or another, violence holds our attention. Polished and glamorized violence (and sex if we're really going to get into it) sells. Have you ever watched badly shot but real footage of violence? Boring. I had the startling realization a few weeks ago that actual footage doesn't look real to me. That's the biggest problem – and our best order of response, reminding ourselves just what is real and what is constructed. It's harder than it should be to do.

Tattoo Removal

patr — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:34:05 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

Ow. Ow. No seriously, ow. Forgive me if I seem a bit off my game this week. Earlier today I had my first tattoo removal session. Then I thought, “well I had to take the day off work anyway so...” and rescheduled my upcoming laser hair removal appointment for an hour after that. Apparently, I decided today was the day to point burning lasers at my skin. You know, why not, right? So I must apologize for any wooziness of mine that may bleed through into my writing here.

My tattoo story starts about three years ago with a road trip, one of my best friends and me. This would be the summer before our senior year of college. I had always wanted a tattoo. I love the idea of the body as art. Still do, actually. So there we were in Santa Rosa, CA. So far that day we had worked (*cough* played *cough*) at Baskin Robbins – her relatives owned one in the area – visited a swarthy psychic for our first readings, and had plans later to go see How to Train Your Dragon. But we did have the late afternoon free. Of course that's when, in the spirit of all road trip adventures, my friend decided it was the day to get tattoos. Enter google and a little tattoo parlor whose name had something to do with a monkey. By the way, I should mention she is deathly afraid of needles.

Three hours later we had tattoos. The experience feels like being stabbed over and over again with an ultra-fine hypodermic needle on speed. Her tattoo was (still is) an adorable, unobtrusive little paw print with wings behind her ear. Mine was a much bolder tribal fox racing around my right wrist. I never quite do things by half. We loved them.

Cut three years ahead. I've traded in my LA fire-engine-red hair for my natural brunette – something my friends and family hadn't seen for years – and my career plans are taking a sharp 90 degree angle turn. For those who are wondering and have asked about the change in hair color, I made the decision for practical reasons but not necessarily the ones you might think. See, that bright of a red never really sets permanently. My room mates and I used to joke that our shower looked like a Care Bear murder scene. Every time I sweat or was caught in the rain, I ran the risk of staining my face and clothes. Not exactly a practical do for living under Seattle skies. The red really had to go. I miss the pop but not the upkeep, which could be a near weekly job if I was really concerned.

I never thought having a tattoo that low on my wrist would be a problem. Regulations don't tend to be an issue for the professionally artistic ilk. But as I mentioned, my career plans have recently veered off in a drastic new direction, shooting me towards a world of nothing but rules and policies. It turns out that my super cool fox sits just low enough to show under a suit sleeve. Wonderful. That and... let's just say I wish I'd shopped around for artists a bit more before taking the plunge.

Turns out, tattoo removal lasers feel like being stabbed with a large hypodermic needle over and over again. Luckily the experience is very quick. It only took five – maybe 10 – minutes of watching my skin insta-blister beneath this wicked Matrix-looking tool. I don't know if I could have done that for the hour and a half getting the tattoo took. According to the technician I did really well by not needing to take any breaks. Good for me. One session down. At least three to go. Ow.

Don't get me wrong, I still love tattoos. I have two others (one large-ish and one small) and plan on getting more in the future. Very little anti-tattoo rhetoric annoys me more than being told to “think about what it will look like when I'm 60.” I'm not 60 now, and I refuse to live as if I am. That said, I have definitely learned my (expensive) lesson.

Being impulsive is a part of being young. It's not the getting of the tattoo I regret. Not at all. That was a really fun experience I was able to share with one of my best friends. What I do regret was not being a little more practical in my indulgence like she was. Just something to think about.

Take Two #64: The American Weighting Game

patr — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:36:09 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

America is fat. Surveys shows this fact is easy to ignore so I figured blunt is best. Very, very blunt. To be more specific, nearly 70% of the American adult population is overweight. About a third of the adult population is obese. And we've very successfully passed that onto our younger generations too. About one in three children in America are overweight, ushering in a wonderful world of early onset diabetes, asthma, joint problems, just pure laziness and even heart disease. Perfect.

Don't believe me? Statistics aside for the time being, how about a story? When researching sacred mountain sites in China a couple years ago, I noticed that one popular location had a fully functional but abandoned lift system just a few hundred yards from the fancy new one I was boarding. These are the kind of fully enclosed, suspended lifts you can usually take over fairgrounds or view-worthy but not exactly traversable locations. Besides the shiny new paint job, the individual lifts on this new circuit were easily four times the size of the old ones. Apparently, the local government built this new system after an American tourist got stuck inside one of the old lifts. His weight proved too much for the cable and pulley system to handle, and it jammed. The whole circuit had to be stopped for several hours, trapping everyone else inside their lifts high above the ground as well. Talk about embarrassing.

Part of our problem, I've noticed, is that what Americans consider a normal weight has... evolved. When statistics and medical personnel say 'overweight' and 'obese' they aren't always referring to the lift-breaking, walking rotund. Though those are the images the media happily supplies. So what do they mean?

Surveys generally use the Body Mass Index (BMI), which uses your weight and height to calculate how 'appropriately proportioned' you are. (A quick google search can find you a free BMI calculator if you're interested.) It's a quick and dirty way to judge a wide population, but it doesn't differentiate between fat weight and muscle weight. So it's easy for a fit and/or muscle bound individual to read 'fatter' than they are. Keep this in mind as you read on.

BMI normal is the weight corresponding to the lowest death rate for a given gender, age and height. There is nothing aesthetic or cultural about this number. It's all about health. 10% above this is overweight. 20-40% above is mildly obese. 40-100% is moderately obese. The images we're so used to seeing associated with the 'America is overweight' headlines are those morbidly obese individuals unfortunate enough to have been walking by at the wrong time. This category is for individuals 100% or more above the statistically healthiest weight for their demographic.

Only 5% of American adults are morbidly obese. But to reiterate, two-thirds of American adults are at least overweight. Is it possible to be overweight and healthy? That depends on your definition of healthy. On the other hand, just as we've been conditioned to associate only extreme images of obesity with 'overweight,' we've also been conditioned to associate underweight images with 'healthy' – a big problem of mine. Thank you to the media for royally screwing up everyone. (Watching British television is remarkably refreshing in that regard).

Give me twenty minutes (okay, ten with a fast internet connection) and I can find hundreds of articles on what steps Americans and America should take to fight this rising epidemic. Not a one of those is going to do any good if we don't acknowledge the reality of the problem. If we're complacent about our 'comfortable' weight, we're not going to actually do anything about it.

One thing that has proven effective, for example, is regulating school lunches. Those schools that have chosen to control what food options are available have noticed statistically significant weight reductions in their student populations (not to mention better attention spans and a decrease in delinquent behavior). Obviously controlling the availability of unhealthful food works. Despite that, adults don't want it.

Jennifer Agiesta and Lauran Neergaard lay this out in their January 13th Seattle Times article, “Poll: Fight obesity crisis but lay off my junk food.” It seems that while Americans agree that obesity is bad, they don't want the government to actually do anything to make unhealthy food less financially and/or emotionally appealing. Huh. This attitude seems rather ironic to me in light of just how much the government subsidizes the corn industry, which in turn promotes the use of things like high fructose corn syrup in lieu of much healthier options (like beet sugar or plain old cane sugar, seriously).

To a point, I agree. It's quite stupid that the government would even need to consider getting involved in something this personal. But with the current rate of weight increase projecting annual obesity-related health costs of over $300 billion by 2018 (over double 2008's figure of $147 billion), we clearly shouldn't be trusted to make those decisions for ourselves. Especially not with our economy already under the stress that it is.

Eating healthy and exercising just a little bit every day doesn't have to break the bank or bust your schedule. There are an uncountable number of resources online with suggestions for quick, around-the-house workouts and ways to eat healthy on a budget. If you missed it, check out Dr. Mehmet Oz's article “What to Eat Now” in December 2012's Time magazine.

Keep in mind, this isn't about vanity. It's about the health of you and your family. It's about living longer, living fully and even whether or not you'll be able to remember that life when you're 85. Vanity is just the bonus.

TT #63: The Book-less Library

patr — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:01:27 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

Inspired by Apple and Steve Jobs, San Antonio's Bexar County, Texas has revealed its plans for BiblioTech, the nation's first book-less public library. The $1.5 million plan includes a 4,989 square-foot space, 100 e-readers available for check out, 50 e-readers for children (and also an interactive kids' 'play' area with touch-screen tables and the like), 50 computer stations, 25 laptops, 25 tablets and not one single printed book.

Response to the proposal is mixed. Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff is inspired, ready to step into the future. County inhabitants are just plain excited to be getting a library, period. And not just a few library higher-ups and education psychology researchers are wary, worrying the move is “premature.”

Santa Rosa, California tried something similar in 2002 only to cave to tradition when library users requested with increasing frequency that print versions be available. The library is now a fairly standard combination of print and tech. Still, that was over ten years ago.

BiblioTech is a potential step into the future. It won't need the space to house thousands of books, and it just might bring previously lost parties back into the library system. Critics worry that this modern, tech-only approach will alienate individuals on the far side of the technology gap.

Less prospective and more concrete, though, is the problem of e-book licensing – a process in much need of revision itself. Publishing companies are very selective about which books are converted to e-books and even more selective about where those e-books are allowed to 'be.' Proponents of the new library boast of having 10,000 e-books available for circulation with more being available every year. Yes, that sounds like a big number, but how much is that really?

Let's compare that number with those of, for example, the New York Public Library. The NY Library has 35,000 e-books in circulation. So larger quantities are possible. But it has 20 million printed books. The discrepancy is due largely to licensing. A library that consists only of e-books is going to be, relatively, very limited.

Pros and cons of this new library form aside, what worries me is the extreme push for e-books that this quite obviously demonstrates. Is this really advisable? I know, I know. I'm one of the younger generations. I should be pushing hard for this switch – lover of technology and all that. But research studies (minus one from Germany) are showing that e-books and reading off of a screen are less effective ways to learn than reading from a printed source.

For one thing, we read slower when reading from a screen than from a page. Not significantly slower if the e-book is formatted well and the screen size is decently large, but enough to add up over time. A study from 2010 concluded that reading from an iPad is 6.2% slower and a Kindle 10.7% slower.

More importantly is how well we absorb and retain the material we read. There is a difference between 'knowing' something and 'remembering' it. When we know something, the answer pops into our heads like magic. When we remember something, it takes us a moment. We have to expend energy to recall. According to research by Kate Garland, a lecturer in psychology at the University of Leicester in England, information read from an electronic source is generally remembered while that read from a printed source is usually known. E-book readers can catch up, it just takes more repetition of the material.

Anne Mangen, author of the article “Hypertext fiction reading: haptics and immersion” published in the Journal of Research in Reading in 2008, blames the “ontologically intangible” nature of electronic text. In the more layman words of neuroscientist Mark Changizi, “In nature, information comes with a physical address.” We don't just remember facts. We remember them in the contexts they were learned. Printed material has more context and less potential for distraction than electronic hence retention is better.

Let's go one step further and look at children. A recent survey from the Joan Ganz Cooney Center, a New-York based non-profit organization dedicated to studying how children read, concluded that while young children 'interact' more with an electronic reading source they actually 'comprehend' more when using a printed one.

The research seems pretty clear to me. While great for high volume readers of fiction and less demanding texts (“high volume” because if you read less than 23 books in a year it's actually better for the environment to stick to traditional paper), e-books should not replace print when it comes to material you really want to internalize. Something my personal experience can definitely back up.

TT #62: The He Said She Said of Gun Control

patr — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:26:32 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

Since Hartford, Connecticut's elementary school massacre, gun control has been one of the hottest debates both in the political and social sectors right up there with global warming, healthcare and the fiscal cliff. Everyone from the President to the NRA, from the Tea Party to my hippy boyfriend's shoeless toes is weighing in. Scour the Internet and you will find a seemingly endless supply of statistics, facts, charts – usually in decent contradiction with each other – and rhetoric supporting both sides. It gets downright mind-boggling and not just a bit irritating. Like any other heated campaign, some 'facts' are simply wrong but most are real if somewhat academically questionable.

Yes, the number of firearm homicides in the US is at an all time low. But also yes, the number of nonfatal gun injuries in the US has been on the rise since 2008 – and gun suicides are the highest they've been since 1998.

Yes, gun-related crime in states with concealed-carry laws has been decreasing since those laws were put into place. But again also yes, gun-related crime has actually been decreasing in nearly every state. Pro? Con?

Here's another doozy that's been floating around. Yes, sales records show that the number of privately owned guns in circulation in the US is at an all time high and concurrently the highest of any 1st world nation. Yet statistics such as those provided by the FBI are also showing that the number of households that own guns is down. So either certain households are seriously stocking up, which is a distinct possibility, or the statistics are off. For example, the FBI statistics rely on households actually being honest about volunteering their gun-ownership status.

I've spent probably more time than is healthy not only reading up on recent gun control news but fact-checking sources, watching documentaries from both sides of the argument, reading comments and forums debating just this topic, and discussing the issue with people I know. And after all that, I have to say I really am tired of the same rhetoric over and over again.

I have stacks more that I wanted to read through before digging my hands into this issue, but I just couldn't read any more of the same. Remember when I wrote about Argumentative Theory a few weeks back? The front-running theory that states humans gained the ability to rationalize and argue so that we could persuade others to our side not so we could be fair and impartial compromisers? Well, I've been witnessing this en force.

The arguments all seem to boil down to this: personal freedom vs. national safety. It's all about fear. Some people fear guns. Some people fear being without them. Everything else I've encountered stems from here. These are deep-seated beliefs and traditions that cannot be affected in any quick or clean manner. Further, this issue boils down to trust. How much do you trust your fellow man (with or without a gun) and how much do you trust your government? Fear and Trust. That's why the Obama administration is being slammed by both sides, one saying that it's not doing enough and the other saying it's doing too much.

Gun culture, whether you are for or against, is at the soul of America. I'm actually a fan of guns. As a woman of small stature, I like how they have the potential to level the playing field. Besides, no lie, there is something uniquely fascinating about destruction and power.

Personally, I think that Canada's gun laws are the way to go. Among other things, full and semi-automatic weapons registered before a specific date are largely illegal (though I think it would be fun to have military sponsored gun ranges where non-military people can test out these weapons). Handguns require a license, and to get said license applicants must pass a safety course and a criminal records check and then finally be certified by a firearms officer. I also really like Chris Rock's comedy routine on gun control in which he proposes guns be available but the bullets be obscenely expensive. Not perfect, but entertaining nonetheless.

Banning, limiting, or, heck, even requiring a doctor's authorization before you can purchase guns isn't going to stop people who really want guns from getting them. Despite its strict gun control laws, Canada has still suffered from a handful of firearm massacres. People go crazy. Things happen. On the flip side, take Japan. Their gun licensing procedures are considered largely a formality (according to the Huffington Post) and yet they have one of the lowest gun death rates in the the world.

Obviously this isn't a one-bandaid problem. Bad people are going to do bad things, and stupid people are always going to manage something stupid. I'm all for keeping a gun in my belt for when that happens. But if giving up my future collection of AR-15 semi-automatic rifles is going to make it harder for someone to storm my niece's school with one, I'll be the first in line to hand it over.

Take Two #61: Post-College Identity

patr — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:26:59 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

I've been out of undergraduate college for about a year and a half now. I've had my time of identity crisis and readjustment – not to say that I'm over that hump just yet... But for a number of friends of mine who graduated class of 2012, that process is just beginning. See, students (or recently post-school individuals like myself) don't think of years as spanning from January to December but rather from fall season to fall season. We've been conditioned to think of the end of summer and start of autumn as the time to get back to work.

I remember my first no-school autumn (that would be last year) being a bit surreal and really quite fun. It kind of felt like skipping class, like I was getting away with something. By winter that feeling had settled out, and by spring full blown anxiety was setting in. I mean, what had I really accomplished during those last few months? School had always provided me with tangible proof that I had been doing something with my life. Without that, I felt a little... stuck.

If you couldn't tell, I'm a very goal oriented person. I'm decently ambitious and I like being productive – one reason why actually making and selling things via my online etsy shop is so satisfying for me. Without a clear path to follow, no matter how I was spending my time I could feel my wheels spinning in place. I mean, sure I had my over-arching, trophy-after-the-race kind of goals, but road maps or mile markers pointing the way? Not so much. Plus, the more time passed, the hazier my long-range view became too.

Truth was I was lost, wandering in an ocean of potential trying to figure out just what it was I wanted to do with myself, what I truly enjoyed and in what fields my talents resided. Now I'm watching a number of my closest friends go through the same process. I know we can't be the only ones who feel or have felt this way.

The hardest part was actually figuring out “me.” See, when I moved back to Seattle after college, I wasn't coming home to sporadic social circles or absent friendships. I was coming back to a tight nit group of friends I'd known since middle school when I still wore full length velvet capes and brightly colored paisley pants. (Thank goodness I've come a long way since those days.) Yes, I know I'm extremely lucky. How well we've all stuck together over the years is truly unusual. But there is a downside to this closely shared history.

Longterm friendships come with expectations. My friends expected me to be the same person when I returned from college as I had been when I first left – a completely unrealistic fantasy, but an effect-inducing expectation nonetheless. When back in Seattle, I felt myself slipping into old modes of behavior no matter how much I tried to fight it. From what I can gather, this happens to almost everyone. Our personalities and opinions are much more malleable than we'd like to believe.

Nothing is more frustrating than thinking you've changed (generally for the better, 'growing up' per se) but then not getting any peanut gallery support for your in progress, self-improvement project.

What I'm trying to say is that I only found my true post-college footing after I shooed everyone else's opinions from my mind. Their opinions are helpful, yes, but not the end all. That's when I found my new life direction, and that's when I finally started feeling like I knew who I was. Sometimes the best way to find yourself is to forgo everyone else for the night, look in the mirror and say 'hello.'

TT #60: We're Still Alive!

patr — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:04:24 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

Happy New Year, everyone! Happy 2013 to be exact. Congratulations, you, along with about seven billion other people, have survived the end of the world. Let's take a look at how.

First, a quick refresher. Around 2-3,000 years ago there existed a collection of mesoamerican peoples we now commonly refer to as the Mayans. Contrary to popular belief, the Mayans were not a single united nation. Think instead of the modern European Union. One of the many people within this geographical conglomerate were the Olmecs, brilliant astrologers and mathematicians.

Using their impressive know-how, the Olmec people developed something archaeologists now refer to as the Olmec Long Count Calendar. Like most ancient civilizations, the Olmecs believed that the fate of the world rose and fell in cycles corresponding to the movements of astrological bodies. According to their calendar, this cycle lasted exactly 13 b'ak'tuns – roughly 5,125 years. They actually invented the concept of zero so that they could count the cycles. This last December 21st marked the end of one of these 13 b'ak'tun cycles and the end of the fourth and final 'world' on the Olmec Long Count Calendar. Hence, the flawed belief that the world as we know it was actually going to end on December 21st. It's more likely that the ancient stone chiseller decided that 20,500 years was finally enough. I bet retirement was looking really good by then, that is if he could still feel his hands.

But how did this one tiny ancient detail explode into an international apocalypse craze? I mean, not even the modern Mayan peoples believed this drivel. They knew that the end of a world just meant the start of a new one. Like one period of a cosine wave, reaching bottom just means it's time for things to start looking up again. Apparently we're transitioning from 'the love of power' to 'the power of love' otherwise known as the Age of Aquarius. Sounds like a good time to be alive, doesn't it? Not exactly reason to go screaming for the hills – or the midwest wilderness with guns and blankets in the truck bed (I know some strange people).

Truth is, people began looking for things to corroborate this faulty prediction. Suddenly Nostradamus, the oracle Sybil and the Book of Revelations must have been referring to now as the end times. Even the I-Ching and the Web Bot project were revealing suspiciously dire portents.

I have to admit, all of the evidence can be presented in a very convincing manner. Just consult the History Channel, they'll tell you all about the end of the world: solar flares, galaxial alignments, supervolcanoes, geomagnetic reversal, planetary collisions. You'd think we were all going to die at the predestined stroke of midnight. As one of my friends said, teasing our lingering superstitions, 'Pacific time?! It was planned for midnight pacific time?!'

Truth is (at least as I see it) if something does happen later or is planned to happen to fundamentally 'end' our world, there is nothing any of us can do. At that stage of the game, the players are beyond us unless we unexpectedly come into our own as the unsuspecting second coming of Christ. All we can do is exactly what we've been doing: living our lives to the fullest, being good people, loving our neighbors. I mean, what's the point of giving away all you have if the world's going to end anyway? It's not like anyone else will be able to benefit from your charity if you're right. And if you're wrong... well, then you seem to have made a few financial miscalculations. Unfortunate to be you.

The one upside to this is realizing that time is a gift. Instead of life being snatched away from us for some preordained purpose, we're still here breathing and living and loving. It's 2013 and we're all still alive. I feel like that's a pretty good reason to celebrate, don't you? Happy belated holidays and have an absolutely stellar New Year.

Life's important signal for New Year perspectives

patr — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:37:49 +0000

By Jerry Gay

Now, we all see our need to take more precautions in the things we do. This will help save lives while giving support to others.

Being the best we can be brings our hope to 2013. Our passion and prayers create a divine reality for our heartfelt aspirations.

Jerry Gay is a contributing photojournalist for Robinson Newspapers.

Take Two #59: Carpe Diem

patr — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:08:49 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

This week I'm going to explicitly go against the wishes of a friend and infect the Northwest with a bit of Los Angeles slang. It all started when I first heard the term “jelly” used as an abbreviation for “jealous.” I personally thought – and still think – that it can be adorable. Little did I know that jelly comes tied to another infamous slang term. My LA friend was very quick to sort me out. She in fact swore to invent instant teleportation just so she could instantly reprimand me if this term ever left my mouth. Curious yet? Careful now, this is a doozy. The term is “yolo.”

Sounds harmless, right? Actually it probably sounds like nonsense to you. It did to me too. So what's the big deal? Yolo stands for the phrase “you only live once.” According to urban dictionary, it equates the moron's version of “carpe diem.” Yolo has become the new excuse for stupid behavior, especially in teens, and is usually followed a few hours or so later by the word “oops.” (Oddly enough, oops is also in the urban dictionary.)

If you ever hear someone use this word, the recommended comeback is the turn of phrase, “you obviously lack originality.” This bit of cleverness makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. Then I recommend you find out what was done to warrant their use of the universal justification of dumb things because I promise there will be something.

For as long as there have been children, there have been rebellious streaks. It's human nature. No, really. Commonly referred to as the 'CEO of the brain,' the prefrontal cortex located in the human brain's frontal lobe is what regulates behavior. The prefrontal cortex is responsible for much of the thought processes that make us human. It indulges in abstract thought and cognitively observes and analyzes the world around us. It not only draws rational conclusions from those observations but also determines how we act in response. Without it, we couldn't weigh pros and cons or act appropriately in social situations. And that oh-so important driver doesn't fully develop in most of us until sometime around age 25. This isn't to say that younger people can't make good decisions. It just means that it is much easier for them (okay, us) to make bad ones.

The problem I have with yolo and the attitude it implies is that it rescinds any responsibility for the resulting consequences. Carpe diem is about seizing opportunity, pushing forward and taking advantage of the openings life places in front of you before they can be whisked away. Yolo on the other hand is all about following impulses. It's about doing something for the thrill and instant gratification without weighing the consequences because hey, yolo! It is a very, very dumb way to live.

That's not to say I didn't do dumb things as a teenager. I'd like to think that I employed more common sense than is generally attributed to that demographic, but I have no idea if I actually did. Based on discussions and happenstances in college, I'd say I probably fell just shy of the middle. Going on 24 this week (happy birthday to me!) I have noticed my severely responsible side gaining a firmer hold. I don't regret anything I did really – everything is rosier in retrospect – but there are some memories that make me cringe, some choices I made that I wouldn't even consider making now.

We can fool ourselves. I remember how making certain irresponsible decisions made me feel more in control and more adult. By not doing what my parents would have wanted I felt like I was actively making a decision by and for myself. It was a very seductive feeling and hard enough to resist without mentalities like yolo egging me on. At least then it was just teen angst and a streak of rebellious independence. I knew I was making bad decisions but chose to go through with them anyway. I wasn't choosing a lifestyle or justifying myself with pseudo-existential philosophy.

I am very much a supporter of giving kids and young adults enough leash to make some of their own mistakes. But in exchange – addressing the other young adults out there – let's not make rash behavior a self-righteous act. You only live once. So don't screw it up.

Take Two #58: Cyborgs Among Us

patr — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:33:56 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

Now, I want to jump right in to this topic, but it's been requested that I follow up my Thanksgiving column from two weeks ago. So here's a quick rundown on how that baking with everything BUT any of the normal ingredients went. In brief, the word 'yummy' doesn't exactly spring to mind. All of my efforts were for naught. Oh, the food was pretty great. My dessert, however... frustrating.

My friends' semi-impromptu Thanksgiving celebration went well – not according to plan but well. Though I suppose if we ever stuck to the rare pre-made plan, death by shock could be a real possibility. The pair bringing the turkey and stuffing bailed. They brought the traditional beer instead. That's filling, right? Luckily they had given the side dish team enough heads up that the sides were super-sized into meal proportions. The hosts bumped the time of dinner up an hour without telling me. One person bailed entirely. Another showed up hours late. Yet another showed up unexpectedly. And let's just say I'm re-attempting this sugar/soy/lactose/gluten/nut/etc.-free pie out of shear principle and perhaps some stubborn baking pride too. You know, just maybe. All in all, par for the course. (I'll keep you posted on that pie.)

All right, that said, “cyborgs.” It's an abbreviation of the phrase “cybernetic organism,” a melding of living creature and technology that together form something greater than its parts. Colloquially, the term is sometimes applied to people with pacemakers, artificial limbs (with electronic systems), and so forth. Technically that's kind of stretching the definition. The implants are glorified tools, the people they're implanted in aren't DC or Marvel cape qualified and most importantly so far people and their medical implants don't meet the requirements for a “closed signaling loop” (feedback between the system and its environment).

I have another application of the term to propose: our dependence upon the internet and our computers and mobile devices. Specifically – not to discriminate – everyone about 30 and under with the codependence becoming more pronounced the younger you get. It's not our bodies that are merged with these technologies but our minds. The way in which we use the internet and our personal electronics is actually altering the way we think, remember and process information.

From Hildebrand to texting to Twitter, we have grown accustomed to expressing ourselves in brief 140-160 character spurts. We are more accepting of summaries and vague statements. Our attention spans are shorter for the written word. What started out as enough space for a basic statement has evolved into the space deemed appropriate for complex events and ideas. Some researchers are concerned that this is even simplifying (I think of it as flattening) our thoughts.

Studies aside, something that me and mine have really noticed is that the ready availability of the internet has all but killed my generation's factual memory. There's no need when we can instantly look up any fact we want (sarcasm intended). Sure we can remember factoids about things we really love, but the dry facts? Good luck. The upswing is that we seem to synthesize more information at a faster rate. A necessary skill when your reservoir is as deep and booby trapped as the internet. Obviously, as with everything, some people are better at this than others.

Another example, I know I write better when I type than when I have to write by hand. It's become far more comfortable for me. At least part of the reason is that I can type faster and longer than I can write with pen and paper. Plus Times New Roman is more legible than Kyra-lin Hom 20-12. The only exception to this is poetry where form is part of the art.

So am I a cyborg? Earlier this week I managed to drop my computer, severely damaging the motherboard. My bright orange-encrusted baby was crying out a steady low, something-is-very-wrong beeping, and the screen was frozen. I panicked. I literally ran to my car and then from my car to the computer care center. Leaving it behind for its overnight diagnostic was like walking away naked. For two days I only had my droid smartphone – a pitiful back up connection to the internet. ...Yeah, I'd say I have issues. But at least I'm not alone.

For a lot of us, the internet is like an extended brain. Search engines and bookmarks are our retrieval system. We affect it and it affects us, creating that oh so critical “closed signaling loop” system insofar as I understand it. If the technology of the world suddenly shuts down, yes, we're going to have problems. But in the meantime, I'm really okay with being a primitive cyborg. After all, the total capabilities do surpass the sum of our parts.

Take Two #57: Let's Be Reasonable

patr — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:02:18 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

Why do we do the things we do? What makes us think the way we think? And most importantly, if we're such intelligent, clear-minded individuals, why do we make so many bad decisions?! A relatively new and entirely radical theory in (evolutionary) psychology known as “Argumentative Theory” is proposing some of the first plausible answers we've seen yet.

In 2011 Dr. Dan Sperber and doctoral student Hugo Mercier published their paper in the Behavioral and Brain Science journal entitled “Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.” In it they propose that the human power to reason did not evolve to aid us in making the 'right' decision, as is the commonly accepted theory, but rather to convince other people that our decision is or was correct. A subtle but very important distinction – just like this theory that is rapidly gaining support.

Let's start by assuming that the mainstream theory is right, that the weighing and comparing of reasons both pro and con does help us to make good, accurate and appropriate decisions. It should follow then that a single person, by utilizing his or her at least average reasoning skills, will excel at solving logical, statistical and economic puzzles (to name a few). These real life-derived scenarios should be obvious. Our brains should process the provided data smoothly and clearly without any bias. To put it simply, logic and intuition should align. ...Now be honest, how often does that happen for anyone? There is a reason logic is considered one of the hardest fields of philosophy to study.

Here are a few questions compliments of Forbes.com to illustrate what I mean. Think about your answers before reading on.

1) Before Mt. Everest was discovered, what was the highest mountain in the world?
2) Billie was born on December 28th, yet her birthday always falls in the summer. How is this possible?
3) If you were running a race and you passed the person in 2nd place, what place would you be in now?

If you're like me, you probably had a gut reaction to each question. Now because you knew these were trick questions, you probably also knew to immediately doubt your first instinct. This gave you the time needed to apply logic.

Answers: 1) Mt. Everest; 2) Billie lives in the southern hemisphere; 3) 2nd place.

I could further go into economics and the science of consumer choice, but the point is logic and intuition almost never align. Even people who have studied formal logic often fail to objectively evaluate situations on a daily basis. And I'm sure there are even economics professors who still find themselves making the occasional irrational monetary choice.

Argumentative Theory gives us a whole other set of should be's. These make a lot more sense. Essentially if reasoning developed so we can argue effectively and persuasively with others then we should be good at arguing (check), more effective reasoners in diverse groups than by ourselves (check), bloodhounds after data that supports our arguments and less than enthusiastic about data that doesn't (check), and our final decisions should be consistently easy to justify but not always good or better ideas (check). No matter how we might argue to the contrary, lots of research show that these are all true.

This theory also fits snugly with tendencies research psychology already knows people have such as confirmation bias (or cognitive bias) and confabulation. Confirmation bias is the tendency to only seek out information that supports our preexisting biases. This can work miraculously well in a diversely-opinionated group. Think about it. If a group of people with widely varying opinions comes together intent to reach an agreement, each person is going to have a different field of expertise. The final conclusion will likely be a fair and well-advised compromise. This plan of attack, however, falls apart spectacularly when everyone has the same bias (why reasoning alone usually fails) or no intention of reaching any middle ground.

Confabulation is unintentionally lying to yourself or to others. Justifying an impulsive decision post-fact is a perfect example. You didn't actually think about it at the time, but you retell the story as if you had, believing and rationalizing that to be true even though it's scientifically impossible.

Reasoning doesn't mean being fair, objective or right. It means that your decisions are well-justified to the best of your own mind's ability. Big difference. From my understanding, I would say that to be reasonable we need to make sure ours and ones like ours aren't the only opinions we're hearing. Something we could all stand to keep in mind.

If you find this as fascinating as I do, please absolutely find your way to a google search near you. There are a lot more articles on the topic and nearly all of Sperber and Mercier's original work on the theory is available online. Have a wonderful week, everyone!

Take Two #56: Primal Baking

patr — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:33:33 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

Hello everyone, a belated 'Happy Thanksgiving!' to you all. Welcome, we are officially in the Christmas season. Hopefully most of you waited until after Thanksgiving to put up your Christmas lights and pop in your holiday tunes – that is unless you just left everything up from last year. (In our house the rule is if it's still up at the halfway mark in June then it stays the whole year around.) I know historically fictional pilgrims aren't as exciting as elves, flying reindeer and, oh yeah, that little notion of miraculous birth but Thanksgiving is a holiday too. Besides, I can only take so many renditions of 'Jingle Bells' before I want to run for the hills. And just for the record, I don't think I'm the only one who found Mariah Carey and Justin Bieber's 2011 cover of 'All I want for Christmas is you' just a bit disturbing. She's over twice his age! At the time, he was only 17!

Anyway, this year my friends and I decided to do our own little Thanksgiving celebration the friday following. For point of reference, I'm writing this column Thanksgiving evening from an eyes glazed over with turkey and pumpkin pie perspective. For me, this friday dinner is in the planning phase but yet to occur.

We don't have the appropriate table settings for so many people so the plan is a tablecloths on the floor, good ol' picnic style Thanksgiving dinner. Reminds me of freshman year of college honestly – interesting parallel, that. As the baker of the group, I've been assigned the dessert portion of our friday feast. Sounds simple enough, right? I mean, dessert should be the eastiest part. Wrong.

See, most of my friends for one reason or another have very particular diets. Of the people who will be in attendance two are on the Abascal Way, three are Paleo, one is as picky as they come just because, one is diabetic and the last is vegetarian. I'm pretty much a scavenger who eats whatever's available. I'm trying to be understanding, but a poor little baker can only take so many restrictions! To give you a taste of what I'm up against, here's the list of the no-no foods of the evening: tree nuts, processed sugar, sugar substitutes, honey, wheat and gluten of any kind (technically they eat as little grain as possible, period), white potatoes, corn, dairy, soy, coconut, all meat, legumes, avocado and a few other specific foods to boot. Whew! Got all that?

No lie, I was keening my ears for the Mission Impossible music while I read the email with this list and the dessert request. Your mission, if you choose to accept it... that sort of thing. But there was nothing to be done for it so I rolled up my sleeves and hit the internet.

Not too long ago, I did manage a paleo cake for one of their birthdays. I cheated a bit with the frosting, adding a small amount of agave to my freestyle coconut oil and unsweetened cocoa mixture, but besides that I stayed entirely within my boundaries. Obviously, that was before I knew of my coconut restriction (on account of the picky eater). Coconut flour is a great substitute for white flour, especially when you can't use anything nut based. The difference is that it's a bit heavier and not quite as smooth. The cake turned out dense and delicious with a rich, almost fudge-like frosting. I was really quite happy with it and so was nearly everyone else. If anyone would like the recipe, just shoot me an email. I'm absolutely willing to share.

If that chocolate cake was level 1 in the baking challenge, this pumpkin pie, especially since I'm not allowed to use my new favorite substitutes of coconut anything, is level 2. I cut my crust back to the serious basics of shortening (no lard because of the vegetarian, remember), water and brown rice flour and made my own 'sweetened condensed milk' out of simmered rice milk and apple butter (both without any additives). I further added a couple splashes of apple cider vinegar to help cover the fact that no non-dairy will act the same as a dairy when it comes to baking. It's a whole lot of experimental kitchen chemistry and just plain guesswork.

As much as I want to rant at all of them for their dietary extremism, this has been a fun baking puzzle. I'll let you know how it all turns out next week. Who knows, if I really pull this off I might have created an actually healthy pie, and that is something to be celebrated.

Dealing with the loss

patr — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:00:54 +0000

As a nation, we were dealt a withering emotional blow with the deaths of many school children in Connecticut Dec. 15. In the days since, as the reality of this loss to the greater community has washed over us, we have been tentatively trying to make sense of it, to gain perspective that would help us understand the why of it. But nothing comes that salves the deep grief, that lets the lump in the throat dissolve.

Four years ago, this time of year, a friend of mine killed himself with a rifle shot to the head. He was living alone in self-exile, following a divorce. He made his home in a mountain valley where he was surrounded by all of his 'stuff', the things he had collected over years and which, in part, led to his divorce because his wife found his pack-rat tendencies objectionable. On top of that, he was a vagabond and his wanderlust did not square with being a family man. Still, I loved him.

He was a gifted cinematographer, living near Hollywood and much in demand for his skills, until there was a writer's strike and no one was making movies. His phone stopped ringing, his income plummeted and he became despondent. He had reached an age where he could no longer meet the physical demands of his work. He worried that he would not have any way to support himself. This condition wore him down over a period of many months and he chose to end his own life in a violent way.

When I learned from his daughter that he had died, it knocked the wind out of me.

That is the same feeling that many of us are likely to experience now in the aftermath of the Connecticut shootings. We feel helpless and numb, in disbelief and aching.

Yet somehow, we have become as a nation inured to violence of this type. Is it that our minds shift to the notion that it is all in perspective?

How can we go on without demanding change?

I think we have to look to each other to make meaningful change and not expect our politicians to do it for us. (Every politician of every stripe is co-opted and left impotent against the backdrop of anxiety about getting re-elected.) We have to change ourselves instead of waiting for someone else to do it. We have done it before on many levels and we can do it again, banding together against powerful foes.

In trying to plumb my own feelings about the loss of these young lives and the lasting effect on their parents and relatives and the community, I think back to how I have dealt with the loss of my own friend.

On the material level, I keep a favorite photo of him on my desk and look at it often. On a spiritual level, I keep him in my thoughts and cherish those thoughts and replay the movie in my head of what a fine man he was and how much I loved him. We can all do this on a personal level to help absorb some of the grief that flows from the sadness in Newtown, Connecticut.

Now, as each day slips further from the date of the loss, and we fight the notion that time heals all wounds, we should pray in whatever form we find most meaningful and let loose our capacity for love into the world.

Take Two #55: Inside-Out or Outside-In?

patr — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:33:19 +0000

By Kyra-lin Hom

The new movie Looper is awesome! It's a science fiction-action film set 2 and 32 years in the future (got to love time travel) that honestly defies summary. The official logline is, “A killer who works for the mob of the future recognizes one of his targets as his future self,” but that barely scratches the surface. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, playing the younger counterpart of Bruce Willis's character, is absolutely amazing. He nails Bruce Willis's voice, body language and mannerisms. It's clear to see whose acting chops the director, Rian Johnson, decided to lean on there. Plus, though the film isn't exactly plot hole free, it at least stays consistent with its own rules on time travel – something that is irritatingly rare in film and literature. Anyway, go see it. It's a great time.

Having two actors who look nothing alike play older and younger versions of the same character is definitely unorthodox for a big budget film. Money like that can generally get whoever it wants. Johnson simply wanted those two actors and was obstinately determined to make it work. As I've already stated, Gordon-Levitt did an amazing job imitating the older action star. Yes, he did sit through about four hours of make up each day, but all the make up in the world wouldn't have done a thing if he couldn't perfect the famous Bruce Willis 'what the f*** do you want?' stare. I guess Johnson decided you can't teach an old dog new tricks and left Willis to be himself.

There are countless acting techniques when it comes to slipping on a new character. Some are more... let's say flexible than others. For example, I love watching Johnny Depp perform and, yes, he is one of the sexiest men alive. But watch enough of his movies (or two) and you can readily recognize gestures that are distinctly Depp. That might be why we fawn over him, but lend toward acting range it does not.

There are also countless ways of categorizing all of these techniques. One that I like is breaking these techniques into inside-out and outside-in.

Inside-out implies that the actor begins with the internal. What does this character want, think and feel? What are this character's goals in life? What clique was he or she in in high school? From there, the actor builds outward: how the character stands, whether they wear consignment or designer, which direction they part their hair – all the visual cues of what resides inside.

The outside-in approach is, as you might expect, exactly the opposite. Robert Downey Jr. in particular is a known utilizer of this technique. Actors like him start with the look and work backwards. What kind of person would wear this suit or that dress? What can be implied about someone by their lip color or the shine of their shoes? This works particularly well in higher budget productions with good costumers. They really give the actors something to work with. I bet you that acting like Bruce Willis became easier once Gordon-Levitt started to look like him.

Most, if not all, of us are familiar with this feeling. The mirror is a powerful instrument. Like the expression, 'clothes maketh the man,' we react to what we see of ourselves. The difference is we are neither actors nor characters (in the traditional sense, all of you existentialists). We can only fake so much before what's on the inside calls our bluff. I remember in high school desperately trying to construct an exterior image for myself. I wanted to emulate certain figures or characters and so I made myself in their likeness as much as possible, hoping that looking the part would bring me that much closer to being the part. The result was a very stylish yet confused persona. I was a kaleidoscope of fashion, seeking a perfect whole image that didn't exist.

We all do this at least once in our lives – most of us probably hundreds upon hundreds of times. It's a transitional process. And I don't think there is anything wrong with it as long as we recognize these phases for what they are.

If I could time travel like in the film Looper and meet my younger self, I would tell her that it's okay to not know who you are. I was trying so hard to be myself and fit in to whatever alternative 'box' I had chosen for that month that I didn't have time to even notice my own skin let alone feel comfortable in it. I'm finally realizing now that that phase of image experimentation was vital. I just wish I could have done it with less emotional angst. Oh well, that's being a teenager for you. I'm glad that's over.

Anyway, the point is that finding yourself and being yourself are not mutually exclusive. No matter how much you might want otherwise, you are you. And that's a beautiful thing.