what a week...
the com, or at least something doesn't wanna cooperate. i was thinking after promos i could take time off and go play what i waned... noooo... it had to break down... so i spend these days lounging around not being entertained and AFTER that i've still got to restore the whole system back. bleh. not my idea of a good week.
anyway, it was someone's birthday just 2 days ago (today is sunday) so... heh. not that i think that person even knows this exists but =P you know what we should say already hehe.
...
ok... in times of extreme boredom and stuff what do you do? well everybody has their individual preferences i suppose, but i find a good book quite irresistable. the library in our school has quite an extensive philosophy collection. heck, i bet some of the things in here will come in VERY useful for our GP essays. i still remember some of the topics given to us the days directly before our promo exams. total of 14... yea, and it's been stuck in my head for a while so decided to do some reading up and stuff...
remember the thing about statistics? i forgot the exact question, but it was something like "statistics show everything but tell nothing" well i wouldn't say that exactly. statistics tell you that there's a correlation between things, but doesn't tell you how this correlation comes about. for example, studies have shown that a child whose home contains more books is more likely to do well in school. all this tell us is that there is a positive correlation between a child's grades and the number of books in his/her house. which causes which? does the increased amount of books cause his/her better grades, because s/he reads more, or has better educated parents, or does his/her better grades cause this increase in the number of books, because the child wants to read more? statistics don't tell us that.
which leads to some major fumbles. there's a positive correlation between effort and result, so we put in more effort and we get more result. that's all fine and dandy. now change the scenario a bit. there's a positive correlation between crime and the number of people locked up in jail. so some smart people will come up with the theory that if we release people from prison, then the crime rate will fall. preposterous? no... it's all in how we interpret the data. we see correlations... how do we explain these correlations... is up to us.
...
and a thing about acid-base reactions.. if we add acid to a base, we get salt, right? we add more acid, we get more salt, right? but there will come a time when the base runs out, and adding more acid will not achieve anything. this probably can explain why some people keep trying old methods that have worked in the past, yet are puzzled that it no longer works. maybe the circumstances have changed, or just maybe the base has run out. we can't always rely on the same old methods. we constantly have to find new ways of adding base, to continue to reaction.
just a disclaimer: the following point brings across some sensitive subjects, especially those dealing in romance. romance, when brought into a scientific light, loses all meaning. i'm giving a warning here... if you want to read on and understand how it occurs, don't blame me for losing your romanic appetite
and the last topic... brings back another one of those essay questions. "a couple in love should not marry". personally, i've long tried to decipher the relations between lust, infatuation and true love. not easy. but quite a few books seem to favour the last theory, and i'm going to assume some of the facts are scientifically proven. in fact it's quite convincing to me, because given all the ifs, it relates to what we've been doing the last few months: organic chemistry!
lust typically occurs instantaneously. it forms as a result of the mixture of cingulatocin and ganglamine, both being produced in the brain. it gives a feeling of intense euphoria, and hinders the process of the right brain, logical thinking. duration? between 3 hours after meeting, and up to as long as a couple of weeks. what happens after then? infatuation kicks in.
once again, infatuation has got something to do with organic chemicals disturbing our system. dopamine (pronounced do-pa-mine) gives the feeling of well-being, phenylethylamine increases interest and excitement level, serotonin gives emotional stability (such that you don't go mad with happiness) and epinephrine gives the sense that anything is achievable. i would draw out these chemicals... but it's quite unfeasible on word, and anyway these are rather common chemicals that can be searched with google. back on track: so now you know how the feelings comes about when someone goes glassy-eyed and declares being in love. this also sheds some light on why people don't seem to act rationally when reality kicks in, especially after rejectment or "competition". the body immediately stops production of these chemicals. the loss of serotonin is the biggest problem, it causes emotional unstability. the loss of epinephrine also means that depression is likely. psh, anyway... the infatuation period lasts anywhere immediately after the stage of lust, and can extend for up to twelve months. after which, these chemicals are again converted...
truth be told, i haven't managed to find what exactly happens after the infatuation stage. all i have learnt so far is that the chemicals slowly dissipate, (as opposed to rejection where they stop in one fell swoop) and the infatuation, as well as the feelings associated with it, is slowly lost. what happens next is not very clear, but in my humble opinion this is where the crux comes. how things move on from there. marriage, is a way, is the ultimate test of romance. whether the trust between the two people can withstand time, a challenge more difficult than any rumours or scandals can be. marriage, the ultimate affirmation of a bond shared by two people, is a test, is all. upon passing the test, life is *more* fulfilling. just like how life seems good after passing an exam. which also, for me, explains why people who marry like 3 years into a relationship generally don't break up all that easy. because the decision is made outside of factors like lust, infatuation whatever, and the right brain, the area where logical and long-term thinking takes place, is not impeded by any chemical the body may be producing.
question: why do we experience these feelings of lust and infatuation then? would it not be ore practical to immediately use our logical brains to evaluate whether someone is suitable for us? theoratically, that is the case. but nature is cunning. what she wants, is to ensure each and evry species reproduces. as fast, and as much as possible. fidelity, monogamy and all that, are human creations. nature doesn't care. what she does, is to equip us with the ability to reproduce quickly. and how does she do that? by making us fell the urge to reproduce on meeting possible partners. whether that person is capable of being a good partner doesn't matter. it's not going to be long-term anyway, in her opinion. the lust period is the set off the process, and the infatuation period is to sustain the interest, such that at least, the baby will be brought into the world safely. after that, who cares?
not nice, i warned ya. but at least it does help to explain certain things. hopefully, it would help in future essays too!
next week, probably sometime in the middle, like thursday, i will start on a series. the difference between men and women. uhuh... in spite of all the activist thingies and being politically correct and stuff, many people miss out the fundamental differences between the sexes. things don't change. and it's going to be too looooong in one post, so i think a seven-part series would do nicely. until then... got quite a lot of things to think about, no?
anyway, it was someone's birthday just 2 days ago (today is sunday) so... heh. not that i think that person even knows this exists but =P you know what we should say already hehe.
...
ok... in times of extreme boredom and stuff what do you do? well everybody has their individual preferences i suppose, but i find a good book quite irresistable. the library in our school has quite an extensive philosophy collection. heck, i bet some of the things in here will come in VERY useful for our GP essays. i still remember some of the topics given to us the days directly before our promo exams. total of 14... yea, and it's been stuck in my head for a while so decided to do some reading up and stuff...
remember the thing about statistics? i forgot the exact question, but it was something like "statistics show everything but tell nothing" well i wouldn't say that exactly. statistics tell you that there's a correlation between things, but doesn't tell you how this correlation comes about. for example, studies have shown that a child whose home contains more books is more likely to do well in school. all this tell us is that there is a positive correlation between a child's grades and the number of books in his/her house. which causes which? does the increased amount of books cause his/her better grades, because s/he reads more, or has better educated parents, or does his/her better grades cause this increase in the number of books, because the child wants to read more? statistics don't tell us that.
which leads to some major fumbles. there's a positive correlation between effort and result, so we put in more effort and we get more result. that's all fine and dandy. now change the scenario a bit. there's a positive correlation between crime and the number of people locked up in jail. so some smart people will come up with the theory that if we release people from prison, then the crime rate will fall. preposterous? no... it's all in how we interpret the data. we see correlations... how do we explain these correlations... is up to us.
...
and a thing about acid-base reactions.. if we add acid to a base, we get salt, right? we add more acid, we get more salt, right? but there will come a time when the base runs out, and adding more acid will not achieve anything. this probably can explain why some people keep trying old methods that have worked in the past, yet are puzzled that it no longer works. maybe the circumstances have changed, or just maybe the base has run out. we can't always rely on the same old methods. we constantly have to find new ways of adding base, to continue to reaction.
just a disclaimer: the following point brings across some sensitive subjects, especially those dealing in romance. romance, when brought into a scientific light, loses all meaning. i'm giving a warning here... if you want to read on and understand how it occurs, don't blame me for losing your romanic appetite
and the last topic... brings back another one of those essay questions. "a couple in love should not marry". personally, i've long tried to decipher the relations between lust, infatuation and true love. not easy. but quite a few books seem to favour the last theory, and i'm going to assume some of the facts are scientifically proven. in fact it's quite convincing to me, because given all the ifs, it relates to what we've been doing the last few months: organic chemistry!
lust typically occurs instantaneously. it forms as a result of the mixture of cingulatocin and ganglamine, both being produced in the brain. it gives a feeling of intense euphoria, and hinders the process of the right brain, logical thinking. duration? between 3 hours after meeting, and up to as long as a couple of weeks. what happens after then? infatuation kicks in.
once again, infatuation has got something to do with organic chemicals disturbing our system. dopamine (pronounced do-pa-mine) gives the feeling of well-being, phenylethylamine increases interest and excitement level, serotonin gives emotional stability (such that you don't go mad with happiness) and epinephrine gives the sense that anything is achievable. i would draw out these chemicals... but it's quite unfeasible on word, and anyway these are rather common chemicals that can be searched with google. back on track: so now you know how the feelings comes about when someone goes glassy-eyed and declares being in love. this also sheds some light on why people don't seem to act rationally when reality kicks in, especially after rejectment or "competition". the body immediately stops production of these chemicals. the loss of serotonin is the biggest problem, it causes emotional unstability. the loss of epinephrine also means that depression is likely. psh, anyway... the infatuation period lasts anywhere immediately after the stage of lust, and can extend for up to twelve months. after which, these chemicals are again converted...
truth be told, i haven't managed to find what exactly happens after the infatuation stage. all i have learnt so far is that the chemicals slowly dissipate, (as opposed to rejection where they stop in one fell swoop) and the infatuation, as well as the feelings associated with it, is slowly lost. what happens next is not very clear, but in my humble opinion this is where the crux comes. how things move on from there. marriage, is a way, is the ultimate test of romance. whether the trust between the two people can withstand time, a challenge more difficult than any rumours or scandals can be. marriage, the ultimate affirmation of a bond shared by two people, is a test, is all. upon passing the test, life is *more* fulfilling. just like how life seems good after passing an exam. which also, for me, explains why people who marry like 3 years into a relationship generally don't break up all that easy. because the decision is made outside of factors like lust, infatuation whatever, and the right brain, the area where logical and long-term thinking takes place, is not impeded by any chemical the body may be producing.
question: why do we experience these feelings of lust and infatuation then? would it not be ore practical to immediately use our logical brains to evaluate whether someone is suitable for us? theoratically, that is the case. but nature is cunning. what she wants, is to ensure each and evry species reproduces. as fast, and as much as possible. fidelity, monogamy and all that, are human creations. nature doesn't care. what she does, is to equip us with the ability to reproduce quickly. and how does she do that? by making us fell the urge to reproduce on meeting possible partners. whether that person is capable of being a good partner doesn't matter. it's not going to be long-term anyway, in her opinion. the lust period is the set off the process, and the infatuation period is to sustain the interest, such that at least, the baby will be brought into the world safely. after that, who cares?
not nice, i warned ya. but at least it does help to explain certain things. hopefully, it would help in future essays too!
next week, probably sometime in the middle, like thursday, i will start on a series. the difference between men and women. uhuh... in spite of all the activist thingies and being politically correct and stuff, many people miss out the fundamental differences between the sexes. things don't change. and it's going to be too looooong in one post, so i think a seven-part series would do nicely. until then... got quite a lot of things to think about, no?
posted by CHENZ | 1:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home