TATKOP 117

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who think that gender is socially constructed and those who don't know what social construction is.

See all the posts in the TATKOP series by Fred Shivvin here.

TATKOP 116

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who think in boxes and those who think about those boxes.

See all the posts in the TATKOP series by Fred Shivvin here.

TATKOP 115

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who think they really do deserve a little treat and those who don't see advertising.

See all the posts in the TATKOP series by Fred Shivvin here.

Seeking feedback, adjectives in particular

Hello AdjAngst friends. We've taking a short break from posting to discuss and consider the AdjAngst blog journey, what we might keep doing, what we might change, to talk with some interested writers, and also to have a little refresh. 

If you have any feedback please feel free to comment so it can inform our thinking. 

See you after our little break, when we plan to have more adjectives and a whole pile more angst!

Fred, Mae and Mike

TATKOP 114

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who are pretty damn sure they are right.

See all the posts in the TATKOP series by Fred Shivvin here.

Economist, a word that requires an adjective

By Mike Lundy

The journalist was interviewing the Prime Minister about a government proposal for boosting jobs. The proposal had no modelling, no risk analysis, no costings - no detail in fact. She asked him how he knew the program would work without any of this basic groundwork being completed.

She asked, 'Why should the Australian people trust your word?'

'Well’, he replied, 'because I am an economist, Leigh.'

In the political fog that makes it difficult to find facts and detail, this comment struck me as particularly alarming. I think the prime minister thought he was providing a genuine and satisfactory answer.

It's not any sort of answer actually. It just raises a whole lot of questions.

When a politician justifies their view by saying they are an economist, does that mean their views are correct? Why is economics a matter of 'trust'? What expertise are they claiming? What gives an economist authority to comment on the hugely complex economy of a developed industrial country? Why does the prime minister think that an individual economist can forecast the outcomes of fiscal policy, even without doing any modelling? (And I have to add, can the prime minister even claim to be an economist? Studying a Bachelor of Science (Hons) in geographic economics - a subfield of geography - and then never working in the field hardly makes one an economist. But then, that's probably the least pressing of the questions I have about this field.)

Let's start at the beginning: what is an economist anyway?

MYO douchebag

By Mae Wright

Mike Lundy's article Douches and other bags touched on the language practice of using 'bag' added to words to make them an insult about people - a 'human bag' full of whatever unpleasant stuff - douche, wind, scum, rats etc. (I also wonder if it has some link to using old bag or baggage as insult for an older women.)

If adding 'bag' makes an unpleasant substance into an insult, it follows that a bigger bag is a bigger insult. 

Which brings me to the douche satchel!   

Douche satchel from Urban dictionary:

a 'satchel' is a really big bag... of 'douche'. So someone who is a really big douche bag, would be a 'douche satchel' an expletive, used in instances of anger/frustration

That makes sense: some douchebags are very annoying and some are very, very annoying. The more overtly entitled and in-your-face, the more irritating and aggravating, so the larger the bag. I wonder, is this the beginning of douche insults escalating in baggage sizes? The douche backpack, the douche suitcase, the douche ski-bag? (Come to think of it, I'm sure I've dated a few douche ski-bags.)

Well, it so happened that I have been looking for a pattern to make a satchel, and had to eventually make my own to get exactly what I want. 

It was pretty easy to alter it to make it into a douche satchel.

So, here is my Douche Satchel pattern with instructions below. It's made up of Mike's eight components of a douchebag. If you're feeling extra creative, you might like to try making something like my pretentious douchey fabric printed on a medium grade calico (see at the below). 

For those who don't sew, you can still enjoy my instructions for the assembly of that most unpleasant man, the douche satchel!

Douches and other bags

By Mike Lundy

A scumbag, a windbag and a douchebag walk into a bar.

Just a regular Thursday at my local. We regulars glance at the door as each arrives, dismay or resignation crossing many faces. If I see any of them arrive, I will try to escape. Sometimes, for a while, I can deflect them by looking really busy with my phone, but that is only ever temporary protection.

The scumbag (who sometimes brings his mate, the ratbag) - not so hard to protect against. Just never trust what he says, avoid shouting him drinks (unless you want to donate to his personal finances), and avoid making direct insults even in jest. He can be funny in a cynical, defeated, nasty sort of way. But he can suddenly turn, so it's best never to let your guard down. Finish the drink and then say, 'Okay, have a good night. Gotta see a friend about my car.'

The windbag - easier still; just try to steer the conversation to something you don't mind hearing about. At length. Escape is usually possible after a 'decency' period of about 10 minutes of listening to what is often little more than a whinge, without getting a word in. As you slide off the stool, slide in a quick, 'Oh well, shit happens. Gotta run, have to see a mate about my car.' 'You do seem to have a lot of trouble with that car.' 'Yeah, it keeps happening.'

Artwork by TheBeardedCavalier

But the douchebag. Ugg. Just grating. 

He boxes you in your seat standing too close with his arms akimbo. Even his popped collar is irritating. And he's not so easy to get rid of with reports of car trouble. The douchebag knows exactly what is wrong with my car, and insists on telling me how to repair it with step by step instructions, and also declares that I must be causing this problem by riding the clutch, but then adds that it is a known weakness in that model as the original design for those Japanese cars was never been fully tested in Australian conditions. Et. Bloody. Cet. Era.

He is so busy demonstrating his seemingly endless knowledge, he manages to totally ignore my body language screaming that I want to be just about anywhere else.

Eventually, one of the bar staff comes over to collect the empties and the douchebag is forced to move back by her intruding arm, so I slip through the space and start walking, speaking with my head turned back to my old, no longer comfortable seat, 'That might be handy that information. See ya next time.'

Next Thursday, I'll try the other pub.

What is it about the him? What makes the douchebag so utterly annoying? And why doesn't the douchebag know he is one?

TATKOP 113

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who dispute there are really two kinds of people and those who enjoy playing with dichotomies.

See all the posts in the TATKOP series by Fred Shivvin here.

Message to subscribers

No idea why the Blogger platform just sent several of the June and July posts to some subscribers again! I was messing around with publication dates, but that still doesn't explain it, as I didn't touch those posts.

Oh well, sometimes things are worth a reread. Hopefully it won't happen too often!

Yours in overly long blog articles,

Fred

Yin-yang a unified yes

By Fred Shivvin

This is the third part of my article on yin-yang, an elegant, complex and often completely misinterpreted symbol. Yin-yang shouts to the cosmos that we humans tend to see dichotomies where they do not exist. But many don’t hear this message.

In Part 1: Yin-yang not, I covered the tendency to interpret the yin-yang symbol as about 'natural' opposites, and in Part 2: Yin-yang seriously not, I explored misinterpretations of yin-yang specifically related to the gender stereotypes of feminine or masculine.

I draw on the ideas in Parts 1 and 2 to develop the argument in this final part of the article, so you might find a quick review is helpful.

So now finally, I’m putting it out there: it’s time to ditch thinking about people with a dichotomy of feminine/masculine traits.

Yin-yang seriously not

By Fred Shivvin

In Part 1 of this article, I talked about the well-known Chinese philosophy symbol of yin-yang which represents the dynamic, ever-changing and complex nature of the cosmos.

To me, yin-yang is a reminder that dichotomies - seeing the world in simple sets of opposites - can be false and misleading. At its core, yin-yang says, ‘You might see two things as opposites, but they are not in reality. Do not being misled by false dichotomies.'

But we often do, and we often are.

In Yin-yang not, I outlined many things that yin-yang does NOT say or symbolise; specifically, it is:

• not about opposites
• not about achieving balance
• not a feature of things or behaviour
• not an inherent nature of an object or person
• not able to be separated into yin apart from yang; not ‘added’ up to a whole
• not about one ‘half’ being superior to the other.

But people make these various misinterpretations all the time. People often refer to yin-yang to make claims about the world being made up of natural opposites needing to achieving balance for harmony. Perversely, the ‘opposite’ of what yin-yang actually means.

One common example is when people talk about men as yang and women as yin or hold up the yin-yang symbol as justification for rigid, opposite and separate gender roles for men and women as a 'natural' way of the world.

While I’d love to restore yin-yang to its original and complex meaning, I know I can’t turn back the tide. As I mentioned in Part 1, we humans are attracted to and easily satisfied by simplistic thinking.

But at least I can explain why yin-yang is seriously not a rationale for our gender stereotypes.

Yin-yang not

By Fred Shivvin

Every now and then, I like stepping back from WHAT we are talking about and look at HOW we talk about it.

In particular, I like looking at the mental 'boxes' we use when we talk about things; the 'boxes' that we put ourselves and everyone else into, the categories of our daily lives.

Mae's last article on Gendered adjectives was about the way we tend to see human traits as either feminine or masculine. This got me thinking again about the fascinating human tendency to see the world in dichotomies - categories to which we become quite attached (which I last wrote about in Gruntled). 

We humans like a dichotomy - they help to make the world easier to understand. 

A dichotomy is when two things are clearly opposed to each other; things can only be on one side of the dichotomy. We see things in dichotomies all the time: clean vs dirty washing, friendly vs unfriendly neighbour, broken vs intact cup, yummy vs yucky food, easy vs hard work, dark vs light, interesting vs boring articles on blogs. We create a mental barrier between the two types of things and 'see' them in separate 'boxes'. Clean clothes in this basket; dirty clothes in that basket. Separate categories that don't mix.  

And these categories work a lot of the time. I rarely go out in a dirty shirt as I have easy access to the dichotomy of 'clean/dirty' when I'm working out what to wear. My friendly neighbour and I share a lawn mower, but I stay away from the unfriendly, aggressive neighbour down the street. These basic categories help me make choices to stay safe socially (no one mocks me for my stained shirt at work) and safe physically (my nose is still intact after four years).

We also tend to think this way about more complicated, multifaceted things, and we use simple dichotomies like right vs left wing politicians, environmentally safe vs dangerous products, able vs disabled bodies. We know that these things are not at all clear and simple dichotomies. They are over-simplifications but, they are quick and convenient, they help us make decisions and interact with others, and we feel the world is predictable and safe.

An image often used to talk about dichotomies is the yin-yang symbol.

Here are some examples (I didn't take the sources, as they are just examples of extensive writing of this type):

·        The yin-yang symbol shows a balance between two opposites with a portion of the opposite element in each section.

·        Yin is the dark half of the yin and yang symbol. It means the shady place, and it is cold, wet, yielding, passive, slow, and feminine. Yang is the light half of the symbol and it means the sunny place. It is hot, dry, active, focused, and masculine.

So often, people describe the yin-yang as symbolising that the nature of all things in the cosmos is a dichotomy, even if 'things' can shift to the opposite sides at times.

But this is a fundamental misinterpretation.

In fact, yin-yang says that we humans tend to see simple, static dichotomies where they do not exist.

Gendered adjectives Part 2

By Mae Wright

In Part 1 of this article, I explored why the adjectives we use to talk about gender and gender roles make it such a difficult topic to write about. The adjectives masculine and feminine are 'normative' - words that carry the concept of 'what is considered normal' and how a person should be'.

This means using them always implies the meaning of 'normal' or 'not normal'. Using them about a person of the opposite sex implies they are not a 'real' man or woman. The words can be threatening to a person's sense of being okay as a man or a woman.

Many people simply cannot have a discussion about gender and gender roles without feeling threatened or criticised. 

I want to find other adjectives to conceptualise and describe human traits, behaviour and roles. Words that leaves gender where it is (it's not going away) but focus instead on the considerably more important concept of being human.

What other adjectives could we use?

I have no intention of saying we should just change the meanings of our gender adjectives: masculine and feminine - I'm no linguistic prescriptivist. The normative 'should be' aspect of the adjectives we use for gender is inescapable. 'Norms' are part of being a member of society - gender is only one area in which society 'shapes' us to fit in. I also have no illusions I could overcome the gender police or the gender reactionaries. And possibly we want those words sometimes…

But can we give them a little less air space?

TATKOP 112

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who say 'someone has to do it' and those who say 'someone else has to do it'.

See all the TATKOP series by Fred Shivvin here.

Gendered adjectives Part 1

By Mae Wright

Gender is a difficult topic to write about. I've thought a lot about what makes it so tricky.

Because this is AdjAngst, I am going to say it is mainly due to the words we use, or more accurately, the adjectives that invade and cloud the topic of gender.

There are issues with basic definitions. We have the varying meanings and misunderstandings of the words sex (i.e. biology) and gender (i.e. social identity). This results in reams of confusion when people discuss (rant about) the latter as though it had the same definition as the former: 'People are born with their gender between their legs and that's it!'

Then there are conceptual issues. The words masculine and feminine are portrayed as representing either side of a binary division, which is a grossly inadequate representation of the vast and complex array of human traits and behaviours. Even those who attempt to avoid this rigid binary conceptualisation of gender often characterise masculine and feminine as the end points on a continuum, with neutral or androgynous in the middle. This perpetuates the idea that human traits and behaviours exist in categories based on gender, but with a middle messy bit!

One sign that so many of the words about gender are inadequate for discussion is the proliferation of new words; recent examples being gender fluid, non-binary, toxic masculinity, etc. But I don't think these words have helped make anything clearer.

I wonder if we could find other adjectives to conceptualise and describe human traits, behaviour and roles. Words that leaves gender where it is (it's not going away) but focus instead on the considerably more important concept of being human.

In Part 1 I will explain the specific problem with these gender adjectives, before I suggest some other words we could use in Part 2.

The settings are all wrong

By Mike Lundy

Senior research officer Edo checked the dials again. The settings were all wrong.

With mounting panic, he started through the checklist of the Sentient Life Research Protocol for planet Sol972P3 for the third time.

The vast array of dials and flickering lights on the control panel didn't change. All the settings were way out. The planet was in deep trouble. And so was he.

Walking along the well-worn corridors of the Academy to see his supervisor, Edo tried to think back to his last review. He couldn't even remember the last time he checked P3. Had he made a mistake with the adjustments back then? Did his hand slip on the dials? Did someone else touch the settings?

Edo scrolled back through the research review screens, looking for the reason for the mess. The pages of data outputs showed P3 gradually had become more and more unstable under the extreme settings. Dangerous settings. Settings that had probably voided the whole research program, more than likely contravening all sorts of research ethics.

But, it didn't matter really why. It only mattered that it had happened. It was Edo's responsibility to keep on top of the adjustments. Zolic, the program coordinator, would be furious.

The implications were clear - obvious to any student of Sentient Life Adjustment 101. The settings on P3 had created conditions that were sending the dominant sentient life form to self-destruction.

Whose adjective is it anyway?

By Fred Shivvin

In these days of social media, online dating and 'tell us how good you are' job interviews we frequently need to describe ourselves.

To do this, we use adjectives like friendly, fun, down-to-earth, positive, thoughtful, creative, caring, trustworthy, dedicated, motivated, effective. You can even find helpful lists online if you need more impressive adjectives for your profile.

When I was young, we were schooled to be modest: to assume effort, character and ability would speak for themselves. Self promotion was frowned upon. So, the contemporary need to self-describe and self-promote has been an uncomfortable transition.

But I'm used to it now. I no longer panic in interviews when asked to describe myself in three words, and I follow the job seeker's guideline: 'Don't be too modest'. 

But sometimes the way people talk about themselves, well, it just doesn't feel right to me.

Here are a few examples that feel off beam:

• We're soooo crazy! - group of performers in an interview after a concert
• We're wild; we're out of control; look out world! - group of 30-something football fans
• My parties are always great because I'm so zany! - woman at public function she organised
• We're all really cool; you'll like working here - new work colleague.

When a person says these sorts of things, it's not that I disagree with them. What feels strange and a bit off is that they use these adjectives to describe themselves.

I find myself wondering, is it actually their adjective to use?

Would you take nutrition advice from an octopus? Part 2

By Mae Wright

Part 1 of this article explored how food industry bodies influence the advice and information we get about nutrition and healthy eating.

I used the metaphor of a wily octopus bent on its own survival (i.e. profit) with the many arms of the food industry bodies infiltrating research, policy, non-government agencies and more to ensure their own interests (again, profit). Misinformation is better for the bottom line of those companies, but an epidemic of diet-related disease is forcing us to sit up and pay attention.

In Part 2, I want to take this metaphor further.

But before I do, here is yet another book debunking yet another nutrition factoid behind a multi-million-dollar industry. Yet again.

In a book about omega-3 fish oil supplements, Paul Greenberg describes an industry based on faulty and untested assumptions about human health. No actual evidence supports the health claims for omega-3 pills from fish oil. Independent research has found no benefits for heart, brain or mental health. The industry's own research reported 'a non-statistically significant reduction in coronary heart disease risk', which means 'did not find a link.' But nothing has stopped the health claims. Marketing alone fuels the US$15 billion industry, despite no benefit to human health and vast destruction of the ocean life systems from which it is extracted.

The octopus will do whatever is necessary to survive, even wreck the ocean which sustains it. We need some way to understand this behaviour.

In this second part, I look at the broader context and what else is in the metaphorical fish tank with the food industry octopuses.

Would you take nutrition advice from an octopus? Part 1

Mae Wright

Where do you get good advice and information about healthy eating, about nutritious food?

Good advice on healthy eating and nutrition??

Very few of us are still cooking and eating like our grandparents. Very few of us learn about nutrition within the food culture of our family, the way it used to be. We seem hungry for credible information about nutrition: there is no lack of advice about what to eat from media articles, advertising, government guidelines, online health gurus and more. Makes me think there must be a fair profit in it...

What if I tell you that you are probably getting your information about healthy eating and nutrition from the food industry bodies… yes, from corporations set up specifically to maximise profit. 

Large, well-resourced corporations represent primary production and food manufacturing industries including fruit, sugar, dairy, meat, wheat, alcohol, etc. Others are not so large. It seems a good idea… producers need a voice on matters that affect them. I'd like one to promote me too!

Their purpose is to represent their own industry's needs and ensure profitability. And therein lies the problem: the food that science tells us is healthy is not necessarily that which generates those industries the most profit.

Each food industry body works to ensure we keep consuming their products. So, much like a crafty octopus, they slip their many arms and their considerable influence into every nook and cranny to shape research and policy, and release numerous media articles providing nutritional information in favour of their product. Or more accurately, nutrition misinformation.

The problem is that nutrition advice should not be their role.

In fact, misinformation about nutrition is better for profit.

The food industry octopuses have spread confusing and clouding ink all over what we know about nutrition. As a result, confusion about healthy eating abounds. And it's having a bad effect on our health.

TATKOP 111

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who bandage over their emotional wounds and those they hurt to avoid taking the bandage off.

(See all the TATKOP posts by Fred Shivvin here.)

Better circular logic

By Fred Shivvin

Mike's series about the adjective Equal made me think about circular logic. Mike referred to the argument used by those who set out to oppress others that they are somehow ‘better’ than them, and this justifies both their oppressive actions and their continued status as oppressors.

 

Circular logic (or circular reasoning) is used by people in ‘arguments’ about something they already believe or want to justify. 

The argument starts with something (the premise) that the person assumes is true: in this case 'I am better than you'. It assumes you already agree with the premise and then no real information is provided to support that premise.

Some circular logic can even sound convincing, but it only convinces people who already agree with the assumed premise. For the rest of us who don’t accept the premise to start with, the argument gives us no reason to change our thinking. I don't happen to agree with people who assume they are better than me!

It's not logic at all. It’s a self-reinforcing circle of belief. (This is why circular 'logic' features so often in 'arguments' about religion) 

But they are extremely common. Spotting a circular argument gives me a sense of accomplishment. They are also sometimes quite alarming. 

Equal - Part 3

By Mike Lundy


Part 1 of this article looked back at some famous historical conflicts staged in the name of equality, and the documents celebrated as icons of humanity's moral progress toward a more egalitarian society. It pointed out that those famous conflicts were less about a belief in equality and more about resenting and rebelling against oppression.

Part 2 then explored the history of society to see whether inequality is an inherent 'natural' feature of human beings, finding instead that inequality was a trade-off for the more efficient resource production of agrarian society. Western* society developed from an egalitarian society through agriculture and an industrialised society that was increasingly hierarchical, with an unfortunate dearth of social controls over the behaviour leaders, other than outright revolt. In sum, appeals to 'nature' do not in any way support an argument for denying people equal rights before the law.

The structure of Western society has become less rigid over the last 100 years, and more people have equal voting, economic and legal rights.

However, one group of people find this all very distasteful.

This third and final part of the Equal series explores the growing influence of this group, the alarming future they represent and discusses what can be done about it.

Equal - Part 2

By Mike Lundy

Part 1 of this article looked back at some famous historical conflicts staged in the name of equality, and the documents celebrated as icons of humanity's moral progress toward a more egalitarian society.

Those who led the revolutions may have used the rhetoric of egalitarianism but, while they fought for their own 'equality', they continued to believe they were superior to others, for example, indigenous people, poor men, slaves or women. The men who wrote and signed those famous documents were satisfied that things were finally hunky-dory: at last 'All men are equal'… except for those that are not.

As I said in Part 1, the 'newly equal' continued to believe in a hierarchical arrangement of humanity, they just moved up the ranking. They drew the line of people who were 'unequal' below them. This reality was captured succinctly by playwright Henry-François Becque: the defect of equality is that we desire it only with our superiors.

Far from striving for equality, history's revolutions consisted of one section of society rising up against an individual (e.g. King) or a group (e.g. the church) that was usurping their assets and food, restricting their activities or options, oppressing them with gruelling work, or generally just being brutal to maintain control and take money from them. The revolutions were actually about securing the material needs of living and a sense of dignity by ending these various abuses of power.

History's famous egalitarian revolutions were more like the school yard retort: 'You're not the boss of me' or Monty Python's 'Don't you oppress me'. 

That's a long way from a belief in equality with everyone else.

Equal - Part 1

Mike Lundy

In the contest of ideas about society, the question whether all people are equal is pretty fundamental. (This is Part 1 of a 3-part article about the history of this question.)

The dictionary gives a range of meanings for equal; I've extracted those most relevant:

1a: equivalent/same in mathematical value or logical denotation; b: like in quality, nature, or status: c: like for each member of a group, class, or society  2: impartial regarding or affecting all objects in the same way

I hold the view that all people are of equal value and status. I recognise that people are different in temperament, ability and life story, but I believe everyone should have the same basic rights and impartial treatment before the law. I realise that many people do not share this view.

From the adjective equal we indirectly get the noun for the principle of human equality: egalitarianism. 

1: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs 2: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people

I say 'indirectly' because English borrowed the word egalitarian from the French égalitaire, originally from the Latin aequalitas meaning 'equality' and added the English noun-building ism. (And sure, equal-ism doesn't sound like an inspirational principle, unlike the more mellifluous egalitarianism.)

Like me, you may have been taught the last 500 years of Western history* has been a dogged struggle to achieve legal and social equality for more and more people. Famous words have been written - 'all men are created equal' - and held up as icons of the moral progress of humanity. 

But lately, my world view had a massive shake up. I learned that the majority of people who took to armed conflict in the name of 'equality' did not believe that human beings were equal at all. They were actually fighting for something else. 

TATKOP 110

There Are Two Kinds Of People - those who think everything is a miracle and those who think nothing is (Albert Einstein).

View all the posts in the TATKOP Series by Fred Shivvin here.

Alternate grief

By Fred Shivvin

Have you ever corrected someone's dreadful grammar, fixed their awful punctuation, or pointed out that they used the wrong word?

I get it - those errors can be very irritating. They distract your focus from the meaning. And certain errors are particularly 'triggering' for some of us. A whole online army seem fully occupied waging war against you're errors.

But have you ever considered that in your battle against 'errors', you might be fighting against the natural process of language change? 

I'm starting to think I might be doing just that when I react to one of my 'trigger' words errors - alternate, the adjective form. I consider it an error to use alternate when it should be alternative. I frequently hear alternate used wrongly in both formal and informal contexts, and I always correct it (at least to myself!) However, deep in my word nerd heart, I am starting to feel I might have to accept the word alternate is just changing its meaning, like so many have before.

TATKOP 109

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who see growing up as learning about the world and those who see it as learning about ourselves.
(See all the posts in the TATKOP Series by Fred Shivvin here.)

Well-being

By Mae Wright

A while back I took six months out of paid work to focus on my well-being. Or, as I saw it then, to stop feeling rotten all the time.

Life had been overwhelming, family needs had been complex, work had been deflating, my house was cluttered and unclean, projects sat neglected. I had been unrelentingly busy. And my health, left on the back burner, gradually but inexorably boiled over. A not uncommon story.

I hoped my well-being might return with a complete rest. For some weeks, I did plenty of sitting around; I sat and I read. Just read. Luxurious. Then, for something completely different, I went on a snorkelling holiday. Amazing.

When I returned, I started on the mess of overdue tasks and chores and neglected projects nagging at me from every surface in my house. I wrote a long list and gradually started to tick things off. My house became more pleasant as the layers of dust disappeared. Satisfying.

I wasn't pushing myself; I slept in, often staying in my PJs till midday. I covered the basics: diet, sleep and exercise. I got back into Pilates. I reconnected with friends. I relished wearing my comfortable draw-string white linen pants and loose t-shirts around the house, the image of well-being.

But nearly three months into my break, I felt edgy, maybe less exhausted, but definitely nothing I like my idea of 'well-being'. And I felt like a failure: I had the luxury of not having to work for a period without worrying about money, something that many could not, but I still just felt bad.

It seemed I was just no good at 'balance'. Being 'in the now' had never happened. When I thought about my lack of zest, I felt anxious. And not once had I wanted to spring into the air on a beach with the sun as back-lighting. 

TATKOP 108

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who rank people from 'superior' to 'inferior' and those not near the top ranks.
(See all the posts in the TATKOP Series by Fred Shivvin here.)

Spurious

By Fred Shivvin

My love for graphs has a most unfortunate side-effect. I end up shouting and swearing at most news reports with line graphs, bar graphs or pie charts. Regularly. In fact, most days.

What I see are spurious graphs, and they make me angry. 

Spurious means:

1: of illegitimate birth; bastard 2: outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities; false 3a: of falsified or erroneously attributed origin; forged b: of a deceitful nature or quality

Bastard, false, deceitful! Yep, they are some of the words I shout at the TV.

A spurious graph is manipulated to make illegitimate claims with false authority and objectivity. The figures are from real data, right? The plots and lines are mathematics, so how can you argue with them? They have a seductive power to mislead and deceive - their apparent objectivity gives viewers a sense of trust. 

Spurious graphs are a boon for marketing and PR. They turn up in advertising for dubious health products, plausible but disingenuous political claims, and shoddy science interpretation. (Think The Coalition's 2019 misleading claim that Australia's carbon emissions were actually going down.) 

Graphs provide authority for the claims made in research and news reports. They are also easy to view and interpret quickly, so they fit into our fast paced news cycle.

TATKOP 107

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who think taking full responsibility for themselves is a prison and those who think it is a liberation.
(View all the posts in the TATKOP Series by Fred Shivvin here.)

Green

By Mae Wright

Green is such a versatile colour. It's my second favourite colour (after purple); it symbolises nature and the natural world. Green also represents tranquillity, good luck, health, and jealousy. It's an easy colour to live with.

Green is also a versatile adjective. Merriam-Webster provides ten different definitions just for the adjectival form of green. It can mean the colour between yellow and blue on the light spectrum, covered in foliage, pleasant, youthful, unripe, envious, sickly, naive, unprocessed and related to environmentalism. 

I want to talk about that tenth definition:

10a: often capitalized: relating to or being an environmentalist political movement b: concerned with or supporting environmentalism  c: tending to preserve environmental quality (as by being recyclable, biodegradable, or non-polluting)

Being green and supporting green ideas is becoming more mainstream. It used to be a fringe ideology, adopted by hippies and drop-outs. As green ideas have entered the mainstream, a new phenomenon known as greenwash has emerged: adopting only the veneer of being green or supporting green ideas.

How can we tell the real thing from a thin wash of 'green' over otherwise unchanged ideas and products?

TATKOP 106

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who can interpret a Venn diagram and those who put words in circles.
(View all the posts in the TATKOP Series by Fred Shivvin here)

Cheap

By Mike Lundy

Here's a versatile adjective: cheap. Depending on its context, it can be positive or negative. 

In its positive meaning, it can be a compelling adjective: 'Buy this now! It's too cheap not to!' In our western retail stores, the signs screaming 'SALE' are so ubiquitous we hardly see the word, but once '50% OFF' is added, now that's definitely a bargain! 'Those t-shirts are so cheap; I think I'll get three!'

But in its negative meaning, cheap is a dismissive adjective: 'Let's get something else, that fabric looks a bit cheap'. It can also be a critical adjective: 'He's so cheap, he never pays his share', or 'Talk is cheap; I want to see action'.

Interesting. What does the dictionary have to say about the adjective cheap?

1. charging or obtainable at a low price; b: purchasable below the going price or the real value;
2. a. of inferior quality or worth; b: stingy; c: contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities
3. gained or done with little effort

So, when it's about the price we have to pay for something, cheap seems positive. Yet when cheap refers to the quality of a product or a person's behaviour, it's not good at all. The negative implication of cheap is that something important is missing, something that we expect to be present: quality, generosity or effort.

Why do we have a different connotation altogether when cheap refers to the amount of money we have to pay? If we look a bit closer, we will see that someone important is missing then too.

TATKOP 105

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who think we 'have' gender and those who think we 'do' gender.
(View all the posts in the TATKOP Series by Fred Shivvin here)

What next?

By Mike Lundy
- avoiding what he really should do next with a flight of fancy on next as a part of speech 

From Toothpaste For Dinner

The books sitting on Reader’s bedside table, on the floor, those in the bookshelves, and the ones on the tablet are all locked in a fierce debate. They bicker and snark at each other as the self-entitled things that books tend to be.

'I should be the next (adjective) book: I am by far the most important and relevant to Reader's current project,' asserts Seven Cheap Things, sitting in the promising prime position on the bedside table. 'There is a deadline to consider.'

'No, I should be the next (pronoun) in line, 'says White Teeth. 'One should always read a novel between non-fiction books. That way, Reader can consolidate all that heavy, ridiculously self-important, so called ‘factual’ information before moving on. Plus, I'm due back at the library in four days; Reader better get started soon.'