January 2005 Archives

It's really gray and nasty and cold and I have a crapload of work to do, but I can't use half of the tenth of my brain that I can usually use because of this God-forsaken weather. And something smells like pee, in here. Uhhg.

7) "The math homework ain't just gonna get up an' do itself."

8) When out of clean laundry, try looking in a suitcase which remains packed from a long-forgotten holliday.

9) Typographical errors such as "assed" and "fut" are funny.

I worked on that thing 'til I didn't know what the assignment was anymore. I'll post it... eventually.

Now, while my bedroom warms up, I thought that I would jot down some of the things I learned about the writing process over the course of this project:

1) I have no more clean socks.

2) Sometimes you get an extra couple of days to work. These days are a gift from God.

3) Having a cold can provide one with a useful example with which to construct a piquant metaphor.

4) Did I eat dinner today?

5) Narrow the thesis & discard most of what you have already written.

6) Happy Virginia Woolf's Birthday (technically yesterday).

Oh, Weblog, I had such a wonderful dream last night! I was in a strange place, far away from here – maybe the East Coast – and my ex-girlfriend's mom was there (I think we were in a deli), and she told me that they had contested Ohio and it meant we were going to have a RE-VOTE! THE WHOLE COUNTRY! (I think...) Oh, it was glorious! I said, "yyyeeEEEESSS!!!" in a very loud, somewhat husky voice like a frat boy, which I think took her aback a bit. Then I was sitting on the curb in, maybe, San Francisco, using a cursor to highlight parts of a garage door across the street (I was using a wireless mouse, see?), which was frustrating, because it kept snapping to a larger or smaller part than I wanted to select, like what happens in Word (which I have, finally); and there was this guy in a smallish, oldish car parked at the same curb, who was basically a hit man, and he was going to go kill this person, and all I cared about was looking innocuous so he wouldn't think meet to off me as a witness. It all kind of reminded me of public school, somehow.
Hmm, that part of the dream wasn't so good. Then when I woke up I thought, "Oh, my GOD! We're going to have a re-vote!" Then I thought, "But, wasn't that a dream, just now?" To which I deftly responded, "Of COURSE it was a dream! Duh. That's how I KNOw... That we're going to have a RE-vote... Jeez." And then the logic began to disintegrate, somehow.
But the D.J. on KBOO when the alarm went off sounded like he was in such a good mood that the logic made a little heave towards reassembling itself. But wikipedia didn't say anything about it in their news section, so I'm still waiting.

Besides the inevitable spelling errors, I would like to print a full retraction of my (seemingly not at all hasty, but nontheless) vitriol-infused rantings against the (heretofor unidentified) c.d. labeling software producing company mentioned in a previous entry.

I was wrong. Their customer service/tech is awesome. Almost as awesome as their very well laid out, intuitive, and nearly fully functional label program.

Needless to say - but I'll say it anyway - they gave me a work-around. And then I got a PRINTER!!!
So now I will be able to put the stuff to its true test.

Again, I apologise.

a solitary

ketchup pack in the bathroom

I know you've been here

UrbanHonking Saved My Marriage!

MAN! It has been a sad day for Mac compatability. PCC has no – ZERO! – Apples for general use! I tried to e-mail myself the thing so I could at least print it, but the frikkin' PCrosoft Word can't open generic .rtf, apparently. I mean, you'd think, huh? With all the fancymins pants they put in there these days? But no. So I was directed to the library for wireless, but the library didn't think I could print from the wireless. So I used the wireless to post my paper to my blog, wirelessly, and then I went back to the computer lab and copied and pasted and reformatted it into word. And printed it. Through a wire. And that worked. But it took me a frikking HOUR. Well, not an hour. But effin' ay! I mean, y'know?

So you can all read my unfinished paper, now, on my blog-site. It's gonna be awesome! (?)

THEN! I got home to find the mailbox empty. Very disappointing. You see, I bought this c.d. labeling software back in, like, a million ago, but it was the old version which no longer functions AT ALL, almost, on OSX. So, I called the people – who, incidentally, are in 503 (which is good, because I actually still have to pay for long distance) – and they told me that I had bought the old version which no longer functions AT ALL, almost, on OSX, and which CERTAIN OFFICE SUPLY STORES are still selling off to get rid of. And there is no download update for Mac (or ANY download update, as far as I could find...). So, they would send me an update c.d., free of charge. But it wouldn't get here in time for Christmass. But I didn't care. [time passes] It had gotten to be the middle of a million later, and every day I dutifully checked the mailbox, expectant, afraid to be disappointed. And every day I was disappointed. So I called them again. And they had had some flooding at the warehouse, so I should just wait two more days and then call back if it hadn't gotten here. It hadn't. So I called AGAIN, and they "expidited" one to me. But, today... the mailbox was empty. I went inside. There were some letters for me – someone had brought them inside... OOoH! A Special Offer!! Oh, YAY! Stupid special offer... No. No updater. I sadly descended the stairs.
BUT WAIT! What's that at my door?!? A PACKAGE?! OH! SWEET MERCY!
I used SUCH restraint, suffering through not labeling any c.d.s for the hours between classes. I went over the material for the evening lecture; I ate; I was the picture of scholarly responsability. And then to class, and then back home again!
INSTALL!, c.d.; install like you've never installed before!
Ahhhh. Sweet labeling capability (as-soon-as-I-get-a-printer...)
WHAAAT?!?!? ERROR?!?!?!?!? THE SAME BLOODY THING???????!??????????!???????

uh.

...u

That is...

...very.sad.

But U.H. still did me right, and my sweetie told me about things she saw at the zoo. Yeah, I guess I'll make it.

14 January, 2005
Title
Intelligence and Definition: An Exploration of Cultural Understanding and Value

Introduction
Thesis.
As was demonstrated by the hot contention over what would become America's legal definition of marriage during the 2004 election season, human beings have a tendency to worry that making a definition more inclusive will somehow undermine the validity of what they had, until the point of that expansion, perceived to be the exclusive components of the definition. The definition of intelligence is no exception. The most important element determining who or what should be included by any definition of intelligence discussed here seems to be the larger context within which the subject of intelligence assessment is operating.

Body One
Summary of the Six Theories (bundled by similarities)
In each of the six essays this paper deals with, the essay's author grapples with a traditionally accepted definition of intelligence, the cultural opinion, or, "conventional wisdom," in which that definition has become entrenched, and his own insight into the nature of intelligences which fall outside of the accepted definition. Or, rather, which fall outside of the accepted interpretation of the accepted definition. In Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Howard Gardner invokes the familiar scene of an intelligence quotient assessment (IQ) test being administered to a young girl. "She is asked a number of questions that probe her store of information (Who discovered America? What does the stomach do?), her vocabulary (What does nonsense mean? What does belfry mean?), her arithmetic skills (At eight cents each, how much will three candy bars cost?)..." And so on. The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of intelligence is broad enough to allow for the ideas guiding such an IQ test to be represented. The definition begins as follows: "1. The faculty of understanding; intellect. ... 2. Understanding as a quality of admitting of degree; spec. superior understanding; quickness of mental apprehension, sagacity. ... 3. a. The action or fact of mentally apprehending something; understanding, knowledge, cognizance, comprehension (of something). ..." But Gardner posits that there are vast realms of what should, rightfully, be classified as intelligence which are not taken into account by the IQ test, such as "... the fourteen-year-old adolescent in Paris, who has learned how to program a computer and is beginning to compose works of music with the aid of a synthesizer." However, the O.E.D. definition does encompass these areas of intelligence. "1. The faculty of understanding; intellect. ... 2. Understanding as a quality of admitting of degree; spec. superior understanding; quickness of mental apprehension, sagacity. ... 3. a. The action or fact of mentally apprehending something; understanding, knowledge, cognizance, comprehension (of something). ..." Indeed, the same sections of the definition can be read to include either or both of these ideas of intelligence. In Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman goes even further to suggest that, not only is IQ one of many forms of intelligence, but that a high IQ does not an intelligent person make: "Exactly why David Pologruto, a high-school physics teacher, was stabbed with a kitchen knife by one of his star students is still debatable. ... The question is, how could someone [the student] of such obvious intelligence do something so irrational – so downright dumb?" Goleman argues that the many intelligences within an individual are not necessarily reflexive, and that they do not necessarily cross-pollinate. That is to say, an academic intelligence may not apply to an emotional dilemma. Barry Nurcombe begins to pull together threads from both of these ideas in his Children of the Dispossessed: "Despite the ubiquity of the concept 'intelligent,' the particular astute behaviors that are most valued vary from culture to culture." Nurcombe observes that an idea of intelligence is a lens – a culturally specific lens – which, when applied in a non-native setting, can distort an observer's view of the capabilities of his or her subjects. Take, for example, the question "Who discovered America," from Gardner's example. To many American third-graders, that question would have a very familiar, very simple answer: "Christopher Columbus discovered America." However, the answer to the same question as given by a graduate student studying Pre-Columbian American Anthropology would likely be quite a different one. Does that make our third-grader less intelligent? No, not necessarily; in fact, our third-grader could go on to become our anthropology student. Of course an IQ test for a nine-year-old would have to be constructed and evaluated differently than an IQ test for a twenty-six-year-old, even if both of these people had been raised, socialized, and educated within the same society. But Nurcombe takes this idea further: "In Rhodesian Shona society an individual's esteem rests upon the degree of cohesion his actions foster in his kin group. Intelligent behavior tends to incorporate a keen awareness of interpersonal relations. Force and life are imputed to words and natural objects, and the ancestral spirits of kinfolk are regarded as involved in personal transactions." Does it make sense to assess the suitability of an applicant for the statistics program at Princeton based on this definition of intelligence? Perhaps not. But, does it make sense to exclude these attributes from an overall definition of intelligence? According to Western Psychology, if these traits are displayed by an adult, it could suggest that he or she has a form of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (O.C.D.), a condition commonly treated as a disease in America. Thinking about it another way, were the executives at Enron acting intelligently when they decided that, in order to maintain the company's appearance of fiscal solvency, they should plunder the pensions of their employees? Many people would say "no." How about if they hadn't been caught? It's a question that would be answered differently by different people. Some would say, "you've got to be smart (intelligent) to beat the system." Which may be true, but only within a certain framework. Within the framework of Shona culture as represented by Nurcomb, it would seem that – caught or not – a person who "outsmarted" others to his own private gain would be looked down upon, and considered very unintelligent indeed for bringing such poisonous disharmony to his relationships. Which begins to beg the question of how to test or assess intelligence in a meaningful way across such a broad cultural spectrum, as that which we know still exists in this world. David Matsumoto expands on this question in People: Psychology from a Cultural Perspective. He gives an example of yet another culture's ideas of what is valued as intelligent behavior, inasmuch as there is an appropriate equivalent for the Western concept of intelligence in the Mandarin Chinese vernacular: "Chinese people often associate this [character] with traits such as imitation, effort, and social responsibility"; going on to observe that, "[s]uch traits do not constitute important elements of intelligence for most mainstream Americans." Matsumoto makes an important point in saying, "[b]ecause of such enormous differences in the ways in which cultures define intelligence, it is difficult to make valid comparisons of this notion of intelligence from one society to another." Even the parts of speech associated with intelligence seem to vary greatly from culture to culture; in Gardner's first examples, from the Western IQ test, the subject's stores of knowledge are emphasized; in Gardner's other examples, as well as in Nurcombe's and Matsumoto's primary examples, it is the actions of a person which are looked to as evidence of intelligence. Furthermore, as Edwin Hutchins points out in "The Social Organization of Distributed Cognition", cultural intelligence does not necessarily rest solely on individuals within the culture; "... if groups can have cognitive properties that are significantly different from those of the individuals in the group, then differences in the cognitive accomplishments of any two groups might depend entirely on differences in the social organization of distributed cognition and not at all on differences in the cognitive properties of individuals within the two groups." How would one structure an intelligence assessment for persons within a culture which relies heavily on group cognition? Or would it be more meaningful to try to test the efficacy of social organization in these cases? This would bring a whole set of variables into the equation which could previously have been ignored. Hutchins mentions "group size, the pattern of interactions among individuals, the distribution of knowledge, and the time course of the interaction" as some of these which would be important to consider. And who, or what, is the embodiment of this intelligence, assuming that it can reasonably be charted? Who takes the credit or blame for its structure and accessibility? Who or what is being assessed? It may seem that, with such a narrow definition as is in use in Western culture, at least those manifestations of intelligence which fall within that definition would be easy to identify, but this is not necessarily the case. It seems safe to assume that most people would agree that a so-called "idiot-savant," though perhaps deeply lacking in certain areas of aptitude or ability, might still be very intelligent, even brilliant, as relates to one or a few particular areas. It also seems safe to assume that most people familiar with the game would agree that, in order to win at chess, a player must possess intelligence – perhaps even of several varieties. As I write this, my friend's computer is beating her father – a good player – at chess. This computer may or may not be able to read a book or be moved by a play, but should such "shortcomings" overshadow all of its many abilities and exclude it from every designation of intelligence? As I write this, accountants are using computers to prepare their clients' taxes. A computer is correcting my spelling errors. Computers are directing air traffic, helping to assess physics experiments, and drawing pictures. And, according to John Haugeland, we are only at the cusp of developing and understanding the potential of this technology. Yet, people have been intent on preserving the divide between technology and humanity, and the superiority of the latter over the former, for generations. John Henry beat the dread steam hammer, but the effort cost him his life. Perhaps this story is a myth, perhaps a parable, and perhaps with a little applied group cognition John Henry would have lived to see another day; but, the legend is certainly a significant icon in the ongoing struggle of the human race to define itself as, in some way, superior to its own creations. Countless science fiction writers have addressed the idea, and have come up with as many takes on the debate, and as many proposed outcomes to the "Man versus Machine" existential struggle. Now, more and more of those writers are living to see the ideas and concepts which they imagined – ideas sometimes labeled "improbable," implausible," or even "unreasonable" – go through the process of development and success in the "real world." And some of these developments raise serious and interesting questions about our cultural conceptions of intelligence; they often are met with a combination of expectant excitement and expectant trepidation. It is easy for one's mind to wander to imaginings of wonderful and constructive applications for new technologies. It is also easy to remember devastating and destructive applications of the new technologies of yesteryear. In all of these previous cases, the technologies were under the control of human bodies and minds. So, what would happen if we gave the technology the ability to control itself? Would the capacity of judgment that a human was capable of giving to a computer ever exceed the human's own capacity? No matter how wonderful and unique a being we see ourself as as humans, it seems that, as a race, we still have a deep fear of "Playing God" or "Interfering With Nature." However, we have created computers which surpass us in many areas of skill, some of those skills quite complex; perhaps computers would be considered more intelligent in Mandarin society, as they tend to truly exceed human standards in many forms of imitation. But, within what framework should we assess the intelligence of a computer?

Discuss Each Piece Individually (show differences)

Body Two
My Definition and Its Explanation
The same question applies to any individual or group being assessed. Who, or what, are we defining intelligence for? What purpose does the definition serve? Are we only interested in quantifying the bright, focused beams of intelligence, or are we looking for every glimmer? The value of assessing intelligence abstractly – that is, as a concept rather than as the concept's manifestations – seems to be primarily organizational, and primarily a construct of cultures largely dependent on group cognition. It has been hypothesized within American culture that certain individuals are best suited to the execution of certain sensitive task areas, task areas which those people who possess a lesser degree of the aforementioned conceptual intelligence may not be capable of executing in a satisfactory manner. Our culture has, de facto, determined that – for the sake of efficient dispersal of resources – many opportunities of education, counsel, and employment will be offered for first refusal to individuals determined to be endowed with an abundance of such intelligence. This seems to be working for us on some levels, but if you analyze the system from an Other perspective, does it still look good? Why is it good to have intelligence? Why is it good to quantify intelligence?

Body Three
How My Definition Relates to the Theorists' Definitions

Closing

Clearly, many people feel that there is some magical or spiritual element to human intelligence, and perhaps that belief is justified. At the very least, a computer is a powerful metaphor for the elemental brain.

"Where is the 'Observer'?" "Where is the 'Computer'?"

Would there be a problem with internal translation, that is, having to use X set of symbols for the initial manipulation, and then having to convert the results into verbal symbols? (Such as is sometimes a problem in some learning disabilities.)

Is it usually manifest as behavior rather than IQ, in other cultures?
what of forms of intelligence traditionally accepted by Western standards which are not traditionally acceptable? That is, what of artificial intelligence?

The question, then, becomes, "Where are we willing to draw the line around intelligence?" And it seems that the only fair answer is, "ever wider, as our own understanding broadens."
"Wherever we cease to recognize intelligence" "On a case-by-case basis"??? Consider each case as its own case; and seek, in good faith, to recognize any glimmer

which suggests that the ideas that Western Society has about intelligence are, perhaps, too limited to include all which should be

(Time passes; things happen.)

WHOA. I did NOT think that this would happen tonight, in time for the assignment deadline, or, for that matter, this year. BUT, I think I may know what I want my major to be:
(drumroll, please)
Peace and Conflict Studies!

Wha..?

It sounds INCREDIBLE! It ties in - literally! - almost ALL my interests and "values" (such a dirty word, these days... so sad), and a significant aspect of my "goals." HOT DAMN! (And there's a LIT-tle surprise in store with it, too... More on that if it comes together!)

I feel awesome! I feel so much better after having talked to the teacher. I think she might even have the sence that I just want to be heard, and to understand; I'm not arguing about a grade.

I still feel like she and I have antithetical personality types; but, well... we'll see.

I feel bad about getting so worked up and, let's face it, mean when these demons flare. But, I guess I've got to get through this stage by having it.

So. Let's see what I learned today (or remembered):

People tell me things; i.e. use me as an impromptu therapist. Perhaps I should take that as a cue.

I am emotionally unstable (or, at least verrry delicate).

I have a good sence of language.

I have some sence of rhetoric. (?) Hmm, not so sure about that one. I would probably take to it, though.

I feel a definite shift in function and cognition when I am writing in my web-log vs. a paper journal, or even vs. an off-line word processing program on the same computer.
What significance does this have?
How does this relate to group consciousness?
How does it relate to synthetic intelligence?
How does it relate to the Theory of Multiple Intelligences?
How does it relate?!?

Some people would argue that a human mind is simply an exquisite computer. Why is this untrue?

Does google display intelligence?

Intelligence is the ability to cope with being an emotional being.
Intelligence is the ability to cope with the most complex and seemingly illogical phenomena (emotion) in a [constructive] way.
Does emotion define intelligence?
What defines emotion?
Is emotion beyond synthesis?

I feel a definite shift in function and cognition when I am interacting with another person who I know intimately.
What significance does this have?
How does this relate to group consciousness?
How does it relate to synthetic intelligence?
How does it relate to the Theory of Multiple Intelligences?
How does it relate to blogging?

Man, I need a weekend. Like, now! I feel like my old Demons are really flying in my face & heart, this week.

My perfectionism is REALLY working overtime. It's especially coming out in my weak-hearted areas: un- or newly-developed interpersonal relationships; historically weighty flaws (ability to do fill-in-the-bubble tests fast, for example); and "meaningless," O.C.D-superstition type tasks, like brewing tea, or tying my shoes.

Also, really weak sleep, the last couple of nights. Really weak. It's trying.

But classes are really starting to relate to one another in that wonderful, mysterious way that they tend to do: definitions, multiple intelligences... Fascinating stuff.

I really felt like the class left me unprepared to deal with that last question on the math quiz, however. What was I supposed to make of that?! I anxiously await a verdict on my answer, and an explanation of how I was expected to interpret the info. (That is, assuming that I got it wrong. Which I am assuming.)

School is hard. I want everyone to like LOVE me all the time.
I want to be perfect. Boo hoo.

I gotta be like, "look; I'm not going to survive this thing if you treat me like I'm a suck-up. I'm not a suck-up; I'm a natural born nerd. You should be glad I'm here!"

Ahgh.

I get so bent out of shape about this stuff. Residue from how I was treated in elementary school: not well. I had such fire for learning. It's such a tragedy that I was squelched rather than nurtured.

Well, I'm here now, and I'm gonna enjoy it this time, damnit. College is for me, and only me. I should meditate on that every day. I should think of all the ways it's for me, and all the ways I can drink its wonderful nectar.

It makes me really freekin' mad when people ascribe motivation to my actions. No; let me amend that: when people inaccurately ascribe motivation to my actions. I feel like, just because it's a required class, that doesn't mean I'm not going to be interested in the subject matter for Pure reasons. Why assume your class is only interesting to people for reasons other than intellectual curiosity? Why assume that people only want to fulfill your expectations for the Transcript Reward?

Maybe I'm reading way too much in (as always). There seems to be a personality type at work here, though. Also, The Type assumes nervousness, worry, anxiousness, etc., when there is only curiosity. Tells you to chill when you're chill already. READ THE SITUATION! UUhg! It makes me so mad.

Probably means I'm an egregious offender in the same department.

In other classes, I got my first writing assignment back...

BEST ONE IN THE CLASS!

It was a little awkward that she told me that with everyone else in the class right there; but, I've never been the best before! So it's awesome! (I'll post it if you promise not to expect too much.) I'm really getting into that class. I think that I'm finally ready to learn The Elements of Style, and not get too Ego about the whole thing. Or emo...

"Day 5" was a little annoying. Sorry.

O.K.: You've got 10 minutes; what do you want to do with your life?

AAAH! Uh, o.k... I want to be happy.. and, what makes me happy...

ORGANIZATION!

What?! "Organization"? You've never been happy in your life.

Well... maybe that's true!

O.k., what else?

Um, a pleasant living space.

Good; what makes it pleasant?

It's clean, not a lot of Things; but, nice things...

Few, nice things. O.k...

Well... and, uh, harmonious. Good vibes with people I love, and who love me.

Keep going...

A-and.. it's a sanctuary; from badness & unbridled negativity.

So, what are you going to tell the career councilor?

Um, maybe that I have some sort of dissociative personality disorder?

No, dude; you're just talking to your self. You do that in a Jimmy Stewart voice all the time.

Oh. That makes sence. Well, I want to get paid for doing something that I want to do anyway. I think. Unless it ruins whatever that thing is for me... Crap.
Well, I should try it anyway. It might not ruin anything. Do I have to have a "Career"? Can't I just have a jorb? job, rather?

"Well," indeed. Time's up. Time to start walkin'.

And relaxin'; don't forget relaxin'. You gotta settle down, some. Talk in the Jimmy Stewart voice, a little, or something.

I realized that my car was still out front.

"I really should put her in her protective corral where she's safe from the Hennessy'd hit & run, or the passing vandal, looking for a mid-nineties stock tape deck."

So, I gathered what I thought might be almost enough clothing, and I opened the door.

And there were wet flakes, slowly falling through brief illumination!

That's not what I'd expected. I was happy, suddenly. I bounced to the gate.

As I drove around the corner, a guy yelled. What?! "Can you take me up to M.L.K.?" I could take him up to M.L.K.

He had a guitar with him; he said that his car used to smell that way, too. He smelled like people do when they've been walking in the rain. Warm.

I've been running across a disproportionate number of people named "Cory" recently, mostly on friend ster. A lot of them are shirtless, "hunky," white men; ages 20-30. And all I can think of when I see them is Lisa Simpson. Ahh, Lisa; such a wonderful personality flaw that you have a huge crush on an obvious &, some might say, undesirable fiction named Cory.

This fellow's name was Cory (or maybe "Dory," but I'm not sure Dory is a name...), and he could very well have been one of the aforementioned friends I hadn't met yet. It was funny. But, I only just glimpsed his face in the street light's yellow.

It went into the computer. Does anyone know how I can access it? Do I have to use some sort of file tracking software? Is it a problem if I was connected to the internet at the time? I'm finally going to finish mailing my Christmas presents. Uuh. It makes me sad that I've taken so long; I imagine my relatives sitting around, thinking, "Oh, dear. It's just 'take, take, take,' and never 'give,' with that boy..." That makes me sad.

These entries are for my "College Survival and Success" class. "Teach" wants us to keep a journal about "the schooling."

School + Cold ≥ 2 Brisk Walks/Day. I found a really nice street to take, too, so I can avoid Killingsworth. And it's really direct. There are a couple other people who seem to be using it, and with a similar schedule. I've seen one guy twice already: alterna-type. It's kind of nicer to walk it alone; more motivation for me to leave early, I guess.

That "tell us something about yourself that's unique" exercise actually got me thinking (after my chance had passed, of course) about just what it is about me that is unique. "It could be a trip you took, or something you're interested in..." I don't remember the suggestions. What I usually try to think of is some large, overarching ability or achievement. But, when she said that - after my turn, unfortunately - I think I started to see the intended value of the exercise a little more clearly: How can we distinguish You from "everybody else in here"?

Typical, that I hadn't thought of it that way; I feel like I'm always tripping over my ego... I should get it taken in, or something.

"Well, I have this blog..." But, as I've been recently examining my comfort level with different amounts of overlap in the various spheres of my life, I probably wouldn't have liked that answer for very long.

"I'm in a really cool book group." Yeah, but people in the class would just be clamboring to join; we can't take just anyone, you know; we're a very exclusive organization, the members of which use two, sometimes three semicolins in a sentence. It might be awkward.

"I learned to walk in Japan." There's one; short, sweet, memorable, unusual (for an American), not too ego-laden.

I considered some peripherals; some examples of "unique" attributes of people I am, in one way or another, connected to: "My father can completely conceal a tennis ball in his mouth," (people might think I made it up); "I have an awesome girlfriend," (sounds like gloating); "My mother has Super Powers," (not literally true). But, that whole tack reveals too much about my lack of self esteem, anyway.

In signing up for Friend - Ster recently, and doing a bit of browsing about in the "gallery," I realized - with rather shocking severity - just how unique I am not... On Paper, anyway. It's very hard to encapsulate one's personal je ne sais quoi in that kind of format, but it seems like people tend to go for one of a number of templates. Some people seem to have at least done a more interesting job of it, if not a better one; but, the form is what it is, and must be worked with as such. Narrow focus. "Wit," as it is commonly expressed in such a format, is very quickly shown to be "annoying and lame" after several pages of repetition.

I wonder if we'll do the exercise again at the end of the term. I should definitely assume that we will, and start making up interesting stories.

Also, there was a minor blog-related debacle, wherein I accidentally used my URL as the signature on some school-related e-mail... So, in response, I have shamelessly Bowdlerized certain entries. Perhaps until I am sufficiently convinced that the "situation" has blown over? My apologies.

On the plus side, my English class has its own message board...

I have a receipt in my wallet for the first term of the first year of My College Experience. How weird... How wonderful!

Well, here I am; I have, indeed, survived one of each of my classes. Already some of my fears have been assuaged: College is (as I have been told) different. I have noticed a number of differences already. The professor/student relationship is, in some cases, more like a peer relationship than even the best instance at O.L.C. And this is - at least partly - because of perceived responsibilities on the part of the instructor. They are dealing (more some than others) with people who have jobs/lives/kids!!/are of equivalent age... How could they condescend to act as baby-sitters? Or feel conflicted if they decide that they won't?

Also, my life now is VERY different from my life in high school. Yes, obviously; but I feel that this will be demonstrated in a complex and ongoing manner. It is so amazingly different even just to, instead of being transported by another person, beyond my agency, to my parents' house, walk home to my "dorm," or "the house that I own," and make myself lunch between classes. Or drive to the store between classes. Or decide to go out on a school night. (Ooh, la la!) And what a supportive social situation. I mean, Book Group?! Talk about geek-love!

God, two days!, and listen to me... But, it's nice; it's making me appreciate things that I generally take for granted, and realize abilities - which I have had time to develop in other areas - in the context of School. Rad!

Well, Happy New Year! I do have legions of readers! Nothing like a little self-deprecating humor to start rakin' in the comments...

Class was awesome. We got a syllabus! Then I bought books.

I know that my legions of devoted reader is glad that I'm back at it. (Hi, Sweetie!)

SO! I am starting the first class of the first day of my College Experience in T minus 2 hours. (Which equals 2 hours; therefor, the value of "T" is four hours. Wow, now I know what NASA is talking about! I feel smarter already!)

I'm trying to keep foremost in my mind that a) I am smart; b) people are not evil; and c) college is different than high school. I hope I'll be O.K... I'm older & wiser, right? RIGHT?!? AAHHH! WHAT AM I DOING TO MYSELF!?!?

O.K., settle down. That's fine. O.k., o.k., you'll do just great! O.k...