Real Friends

I just want to write about recent life experience. We've been in our neighborhood now for just shy of 10 years. There are some great people here & we have had good experiences. However, I can undeniably say my social experience always feels like there's a clear hierarchy and I'm NOT at the top. This bothers me sometimes more than others but it's always kind of an underlying thing.

There was one exception. For a few years, we started hanging out with the neighbors right behind us and they were SO MUCH like us. The husband had an upbringing that was very similar to mine and residual family dysfunction and the wife had a relatively healthy upbringing like my husband but they were very down-to-earth, compassionate in action, funny, and easy to be around for long periods of time. They were raising their kids in similar ways to us, had similar values and priorities, and were just very good-hearted people. Our families got together at least once or twice a month, talking, eating, watching movies, or going to community events. It felt very comfortable and because we had such a good social connection with them, it was easy to ignore the whole hierarchy thing that was prevalent in the rest of the neighborhood. These amazing creatures moved 4-5 years ago.

Now they live a 2-hour drive away. We do still see them and we have a great time when we get together. We've even stayed over at their house but we only see each other once, maybe twice a year instead of every month. Because we don't hang out regularly, the hierarchy here gets to me more. I've never lived in a place where people talk more about compassion and don't act upon it at all. In our previous neighborhood, nobody talked about compassion but everybody acted with compassion on a daily basis as just part on an ingrained lifestyle. The longer our good buddies have lived away, the more obvious it has become that we just aren't on the same page as the other people that live around us. These are good people but they constantly talk about and prioritize vacations and clothes and cars and hair and participation in sports and clubs and image overall. None of these are things that matter to me. I don't prioritize them, don't fit in due to any of these things, and don't enjoy talking about them either. I'm happy that so many neighbors take a lot of vacations but sometimes my husband & I make bets about how many times we will hear about people's trips when we get together and the actual number is always higher than we predict. It's gotten to be kind of a running joke. I want a vacation as much as anybody & I enjoy vacations but there are just so many things that get more concentration and effort.

We were recently invited to a Game Night with people from our previous neighborhood. These people have invited us to many things over the last few years and I've been struggling socially overall so I've declined in succession. However, we accepted this last invitation. We went over and saw several people I haven't seen for a while now, certainly more than a year and probably closer to two years. We chatted, had snacks, and played games. It felt like my world changed in one night-I had forgotten what it was like (or that it was even achievable) to be wholly accepted exactly as we are and embraced, encouraged, and valued unconditionally. I've valued my family in these ways and have often times found moments of this in our home but have not felt it outside of our home in a very long time. I really had forgotten that it was even a possibility. Feeling this way all the time would be so healing and freeing. We ARE trying to prepare to move back closer to our previous neighborhood and this was a discussion long before the Game Night. However, Game Night made us all the more engaged in the cause. There is no guarantee that moving back to a neighborhood like this will be the same as before but it is more likely to connect with others in terms of lifestyle and priorities. I'm mostly posting this as a reminder to myself that something so incredible is possible and that I don't want to lose it. Hopefully, this will be something we can pursue this year.

Pros of not having all the information

Humanity judges harshly all the time, especially when there's not enough information to come to an informed conclusion. This is often harmful to individuals and harmful to society. However, recently I had an experience when not having enough information was helpful. I went to a particular movie. I didn't expect much. The trailer looked like it would be an interesting premise and contained some suspense. It seemed like it would be fun to go to this show. I ended up LOVING the movie, just loving it. First of all, there was a pop concert element to the movie. It was so involved that I thought the filmmaker was brilliant, that they had almost produced this whole other simultaneous movie due to how far they went to show a good and realistic pop concert.

It certainly seemed like they had done a great amount of research and had spared no expense in producing a believable concert experience while another plot unfolded in the movie at the same time. I was impressed by that. Another thing that I loved was how strong the female characters were. This is very rare. Nobody was calling attention to this fact in the movie (such as the song Speechless in the non-animated version of Aladdin, which cheapens the idea of female empowerment IMO). However, all the good and strong characters in the film are women. These women are smart, thoughtful, interesting, careful, protective, talented, and compassionate. They are believable characters.

The plot feels playful with the viewer as well. You aren't just watching things unfold. It feels like you are personally being toyed with a bit as everything unfolds, all the way through the end of the movie. This is fantastic!

I immediately encouraged others to go see this show, said there was MUCH to talk about. Nobody I talked to did go see the show. My mom tried to see it but by the time that happened, it was no longer in theaters. My oldest son hadn't wanted to see it but kept coming across some buzz online about it and changed his mind, now wanting to see it, but this was also after it stopped being in theaters. It was while I was searching for any theater it might still be in that I came across many negative reviews. I was very curious. As one responder said to these bad reviews, "You DIDN'T like it? Did we even watch the same movie?!"

I indulged in the reddit rabbit-hole. It wasn't long into this that I discovered an interesting fact: The pop star putting on the concert in the movie was the writer & producer's daughter. OH!!! The lights clicked on. When I was impressed with the concert element of the film, it wasn't because the producer researched and put their heart and soul into providing an authentic concert experience to the viewers, it was because the writer & producer wanted to showcase their own daughter's talents.

That really changed things. Now I knew the purpose of the movie was the concert and the rest of the thriller plot was thrown in so that the concert could happen. This shifts everything! Hmmm...well, I was glad that I didn't know this when I saw the movie because I liked seeing everything play out without knowing that the writer/producer and one of the main characters were father-daughter. I liked viewing the show without having all the information. Everything was more impressive that way.

Expert Opinion & Unconventional Education

What makes somebody an expert? I was reading a book recently and the author claims to have worked in the mental health field and have a PhD. Many interested readers did some research and say she didn't attend an accredited college & shouldn't be working with people in this capacity, that she's not qualified. Some readers even claim she's not qualified to share stories and offer opinions (but it was a memoir, not a mental health guidebook). This all got me thinking. The mental health profession is an area where I do think it's more important to be qualified and have a regulated education. Any kind of health profession is justified in having standard requirements.

What about economics though? I have a bachelors & masters degree in economics and a doctorate degree in political economics. I went to an unaccredited college to finish up all of these degrees. Originally, the biggest reason I went to this school was because of the affordability. I didn't care that it wasn't accredited. Finishing my degrees was something that would be meaningful to me personally and this was the best economical choice for accomplishing this. I had 3 years of college classes in accredited colleges beforehand. However, once I started getting back into school at this UNaccredited school, I was blown away with the difference, blown away in a good way. The first thing I loved was that all of the requirements for every degree were laid out and classes were taken online. I did not have to take Economics 4020 for the time period of 1 semester for example.

I knew all the information I had to read to complete the course, all the papers I had to satisfactorily write for the course, and once I completed these requirements, I would receive credit. If I got it done in one month, I would get credit for the course. If it took me a year, I would get credit for the course at that time. Interestingly enough, when working on my bachelor's degree, I knew everything that would be required for getting a masters and a doctorate at the same time. There were certain topics that really lit my fire. If I was having a very intense experience, for instance, learning about the Constitution, its history, and the affect it was having on the financial policies of our country and I completed all the requirements for my bachelors degree (Constitution 3100), I didn't have to be done with learning and put out the fire. I was not officially enrolled in the masters program yet but I knew that I could forge forward, do all the reading and write all the papers for Constitution 5100. I just saved them on my computer and kept learning all about these topics until I felt satisfied and/or ready to move on to something else. I would save all the higher level writing assignments for Constitution 5100, knowing I couldn't submit any of them until I was officially enrolled in the masters program.

Once I DID enter the masters program officially, I had a good chunk of the work completed and the same is true for once I officially entered the program for my doctorate, although there were far more rigorous assignments for the doctorate program and many things I couldn't do until I was officially in the program. Honestly, I spent about 10 hours a day on school at least 4-5 days per week and I did this for about 2 years to complete my bachelors, masters, and doctorate. Here's the thing though: the education I got cannot be beat. It was a true & pure education. I felt so passionate about all that I was learning that I regularly began and completed side research projects on most subjects that I studied. I wrote extra papers. I engaged in additional exchanges with my professor and my thirst for knowledge and my satisfaction for obtaining it was unquenchable. My professor said he's never had anybody complete the programs in the timeframe that I had so I know my experience was not the standard experience. For my thesis, I did not have to defend it in front of a panel. I had to submit it in bits & pieces and would get written feedback and had to revise accordingly until all the parts were acceptable and approved. When it came to some of the writing projects for my doctorate degree, they nearly broke me. I was at the brink of concepts my brain could really grasp and the edge of what I felt capable of academically. There were nights that I cried myself to sleep, not believing that I could finish school after all because of how challenging the subject matter was to me. After submitting many papers that were rejected, I had several very long phone calls with my professor, a man who refused to give me answers to fill in the blanks I was struggling with but would guide me to find the answers myself (which are not published in anything I could find). I'm not saying that because I was frustrated, my degrees were earned. I'm saying that the requirements were not lowered just because it was an unaccredited school. There was nothing easy about getting my degrees. There were no shortcuts.

I did not simply pay for a degree I did not put the work into. I know that this whole process and timeline is all very unconventional. I didn't plan to tell anybody about my education. I didn't plan, directly, to use it professionally. It was just a personal pursuit that was important to me. Over time and partially due to my rigorous study schedule, some people did find out about it. Of those who have found out, some have been supportive. Some have made comments that make it clear they don't believe I got a "real" education. I didn't do it in the traditional way-I understand that. Does this mean I'm disqualified from having an educated opinion? Is an accredited education the only one that qualifies somebody to be an expert? (I'm certainly not saying I am an expert, just simply asking questions about what the qualifications to be one are.) We have access to the best information on all subjects that's ever been available in human history. Are we truly only qualifying education if the information we're exposed to comes from an accredited school? It's more likely that the information we get from an accredited school is manipulated information than the information we get elsewhere. Accredited schools have agendas, sponsors, large payrolls, and so many other things affecting them. They can be amazing as well, considering industry standards, distributing information that ensures employability, and just providing overall educational standards. There are pros and cons.

I do want to mention a change in my approach to eduation, which happened in my first 3 years of school at an accredited college. I was taking history from a professor named John McCormick. He said that he would never teach us or test us on a list of dates and names because a few years down the road, we wouldn't remember any of it and it would not matter. He said he would teach us and test us on the history of ideas because that is hopefully what we'd remember long-term and that is what actually mattered. This changed my personal approach to education. I don't try to memorize the trivial things. I try to learn and incorporate the main ideas and thoughts of a subject. For instance, when it comes to economics, I don't obsess over the formulas. I have no interest in pursuing econometrics, the mathematical analytics for economics. I'm glad some people are into that but it's not for me. I am interested in our nation's views and practices in managing money and in the government's role in those practices. I'm interested in how other countries have approached these same things. I'm interested in state and federal policies and how these affect the average citizen. I'm interested in the history of inflation, not just the rates alone but what was going on politically to change inflation? How did the Federal Reserve come to be and what can we learn from deep diving into their history? They've been around now for 111 years-do they make the nation economically stronger or economically weaker? Knowing the formulas, while helpful in some ways, in my opinion will not have as profound of an affect on worldwide economics as understanding how policies in a country change the economics of a country. That's what I like to focus on.

In theory, I get paid more at my job for having higher degrees but my job does NOT recognize my degrees beyond two Associates Degrees, obtained at accredited schools. I cannot take the same pathway to become a teacher as somebody who got the same higher degrees as I got but from an accredited school. So far, professionally, my degrees do nothing for me. If I were to change jobs and bring my degrees into play, there is no standard way to approach it. In some places, an unaccredited degree is useless. In some industries, it's acceptable. Apparently, in 11 states, it's illegal to list a degree from an unaccredited college on your resume (but not in my state).

There are many offshoots to this consideration. I often go back to the question of "What is an education?" If you believe it's about learning, there is room for unconventional pathways. If you believe it's about uniformity, one strict path, or checkboxes, there is not room for unconventional pathways. If you believe being an expert means having meaningfully explored a subject matter deeply, there is room for opinions that come from people who took unconventional pathways. However, if you believe being an expert means one must have checked off all the accredited requirement boxes, there is no room for somebody with my educational background.

Man on the Moon

This is a long story so buckle up and strap in (if anybody ever actually lands here-ha ha). My neighbors stopped me last night when I was walking our dog and invited me to join in a convo with 3 other couples. One neighbor started right away with, "Do you believe that a man has really been to the moon?" I hesitatingly (because of previous experience expressing my true thoughts) answered, "I kind of DON'T believe that we've really put anybody on the moon" and she got excited because that's what her husband has recently concluded. He got excited and said, "Have you been watching the Tik Tok videos on that, too?" I joked around and said, "No. Is that where YOU get all your reliable information?" and like the special individual I am, that kind of killed that line of convo. I didn't mean it condescendingly. I meant to add some light-heartedness to a serious topic that I actually really love-mmm, conspiracy theories! Yummy! However, my execution can always use a whole lot of work.

I was overthinking about all of this, like I do. I started wondering when it was exactly that I started believing they did not really put a man on the moon and I couldn't pinpoint it but every time I hear the R.E.M. song Man on the Moon, I kind of think-ha ha, this song is clever but never did an analysis on it. Well, today was the day. I looked up the lyrics, did quick research on every topic within the song-Mott thh Hoople, Andy Kaufman, his wrestling gig and relationship with Fred Blassie and their movie, the Egyptian asp (snake), which is rumored to be the method Cleopatra used to kill herself, etc. I looked up all the things. I knew the first two chorus lines-If you believe they put a man on the moon...If you believe there's nothing up their sleeve...but I didn't even realize the chorus ends with "Then nothing is cool" so they are drawing a line in the sand for people that just believe at face value. There are so many other nods to pop culture, Elvis, people faking their own deaths, even the line, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah" is based on Kurt Cobain's use of the word "yeah." I was reading R.E.M.'s comments about the song and how Mike Mills had said about Kaufman, "He's the perfect ghost to lead you through this tour of questioning things. Did the moon landing really happen? Is Elvis really dead? He was kind of an ephemeral figure at that point so he was the perfect guy to tie all this stuff together..."

I've mentioned before that I like to read things but stay for the comments. On https://www.songfacts.com/lyrics/rem/man-on-the-moon, the first comment is this story (edited to shorten slightly): Michellemiller from Buda, Texas wrote-"I was confused about truth and lies at the very beginning of Covid...My cousin visited for the first time ever and we talked about how coincidences are not coincidental at all. She went home the following day. Next day my husband and I chat for a moment as he was making his way to work about Jim Carrey and his role as Andy Kaufman in the Movie man on the Moon. Shortly after he leaves. I begin going through my books on a bookshelf and from my first Bible falls a movie ticket. It’s the stub for the movie Man on the Moon when I saw it in theaters in 1999. On the back I wrote the three people I went to see it with and the town which was Plainview, Texas. One of the names was my cousin who had just visited. I called to tell her about the coincidence..As I told her about it I shared the part that we watched it together when I visited her in Plainview. She was shocked because when she got home the night before from our visit she watched a movie with her kids, she was telling them about Jim Carrey and decided to watch Man on the Moon because she vaguely remembered enjoying it. She said she was trying to remember who she saw it with and I call her the very next day with the answer, literally pre planned 21 years earlier by no coincidence. The next day was my sons 16th birthday so with Covid in full effect we were limited to options for celebration so he decided we would order burgers from fudruckers. As we sat in the parking lot waiting for our burgers to be cooked I told him about this crazy Man on the Moon story. He was also shocked. After the story the food was ready so I went inside to pay while he added his fixings to his burger. There was music playing inside but I didn’t notice until we exited into the strange silence of Covid and no one being in public that the song on the speakers kept playing in my subconscious after we exited. It was REMs Man on the Moon. We went back inside to verify it, and in fact it was that song...One more thing, one of the first microbiologist to buck the narrative of Covid saying it’s a hoax and only real because we choosing gullibility to believe it is real claimed it has never been proven or seen under a microscope and contradicts every scientific fact regarding viruses prior to its inception. Well his name is Dr. Andy Kaufman. Dr. Kaufman is also a psychologist that clearly recognizes the manipulation being played out on a gullible world over trusting and lacking curiosity for truth. Another funny non coincidence is that Dr. Andy Kaufman’s theory is called Operation MoonShot." I looked this up and sure enough, Dr. Andrew Kaufman can be all verified with Operation Moonshot.

This is not a post taking a stand on anything. It's just a post about an interesting experience and learning journey. Also, the song to me means to question things. Don't just believe anything at face value or on the news or on social media. Look into it for yourself and a little doubt along the way is not a bad thing. Never stop asking questions! Also, did they really put a man on the moon? What do you think?

Various thoughts

I was reading the book The Parasitic Mind, which I found mediocre overall but there were a few golden nuggets to glean. These are some of my notes from it: *Pg. 96..."an increase in the extent to which one's immune system has been compromised by illness over a given time period, the more likely one is to prefer spicy foods." Basically, if somebody has struggled with immunity, they may like spicy foods more and the spices offer an antimicrobial protection against foodborne pathogens. This is an interesting idea I hope to spend more time on in the future. The book goes on to say that opposing viewpoints are like an immune system. Opposition builds strength...society is having their immunity stripped. *Pg. 100...Universities..."Today the minimization of hurt feelings among preferred groups is fundamentally more important...than the pursuit of truth. The creation of safe spaces supersedes free speech and intellectual enrichment." This is the idea that if any thoughts or beliefs are put out there that could even be interpreted as hurting anybody else's feelings, they should be abandoned to protect a safe space. Without wading through the good, the bad, and the ugly, truth becomes trickier to find and recognize. *"murder of the truth" There was a study of rape done with a presupposed outcome in mind that suggested a kind of racism. During the study, no rape occurred. That should have been great news but instead the conclusion was drawn that thse men hate these women even too much to rape them...this distorts the truth and twists a narrative into place. Also along the lines of racism, it was written, "Being kind and tolerant is a form of racism in the eco-system of the university campus." These are just ideas I've been introduced to and I want to dive in deeper when I have a chance. *Martin Luther King Jr. said, "A time comes when silence is betrayal." I think we have to know when to stand up for something. Also, MLK Jr. was a powerful example of always standing for justice with peace and love. We don't have to use hate to take a powerful stand. You can make a greater impact with love and non-violent approaches.

More substitution considerations

So I did something at work this week that I have not done in 7 years...I used the faculty restroom. I've just been holding it in all these years because I don't like to use restrooms away from home and I already feel uncomfortable in random schools all the time. It was glorious. I had been drinking plenty of water and even though I went several times at home before I had to leave, I had to go at school, too. I grew more uncomfortable as the day went on. On my lunch break, I went for it. I only had one class left after that but it was remarkable how much more comfortable I felt. I could stand or sit or walk around. However, I had two more days of working at the same school so I've proceeded to stop drinking any water because I sure don't want to do that again.

I've been subbing for the same teacher all week. Today's assignment in all classes was for everybody to pair up and have a documented mini debate about women's suffrage. One person had to be for it and one person had to be against it, both using arguments from this time period. From an educational standpoint, this was a fantastic assignment! I saw students immediately engage and behavior problems disappeared.

I did a little research of my own and was shocked to find out that Massachusetts was the first state that tried to pass a measure to allow women to vote and 200 women came out to protest-it never passed. I have always pictured men protesting women voters but much of the early opposition came more from women, at least publicly. For the downside, this assignment posed some ethical questions as the day went on. One reflective student seemed frustrated all during class and said to another student, "This is a dumb assignment. It just pits the boys and girls against each other. No girl today will say women shouldn't vote and no guys are going to bend over backwards to defend women's rights."

I heard other comments such as, "This is just a way to divide us more" and in a few classes, I kept hearing VERY sexist remarks. It was in groups of guys and they'd support and encourage each other. Girls glared or whispered to their girl friends that they hope he never has a wife or daughters but were not very loud about their disgust. I mediated as best I could and found myself saying that I hope a lot of what I was hearing was for the sake of the assignment and would not be a part of life outside of the classroom today.

There were people who broke the molds. There were a few boys during the day that DID battle for women's rights to vote and they were vocal and sometimes challenged some of the sexist remarks that were said. Some girls did take the side against women voting and I heard a lot of different reasons, including, "I don't even care about any of this. I wouldn't put a lot of energy into changing it one way or another." People are certainly entitled to feel that way, men or women. This is just a situation that makes me question where the balance lies. It was an assignment that helped people engage more but was what they were learning helpful? Should there be assignments that focus on gender or do those just divide us more? I'm not sure what the answers are.

The flaws of Darwin

I read the book Groupthink by Christopher Booker. I didn't agree with everything in it but the more I thought about his ideas and my experiences, many of his writings were more accurate than I first wanted to recognize.

He's clearly against organized religion and I belong to one but groupthink does affect our religion, even if that doesn't interfere wholly with the tenets of belief. Groupthink does contribute problems even to religion. It contributes problems to educational institutions as well, no matter how great the ideals one might be founded on are.

One of my favorite parts of the book deals with Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin himself suggested there were four problems with his theory that could cause him to concede he was wrong. They were: 1. The absence of 'intermediate forms' (Darwin found no fossils that show transitional stages of one form of life evolving into another. Darwin hoped if more fossils were found, this could be laid to rest but this hasn't completely happened, although there are some scientific communities that suggest there ARE more transitional fossils. Different groups are defining transitional fossils with variations that make it hard to draw definite conclusions).

2. Evolutionary leaps or the appearance of complex organs (These are organs in which all the parts must work interdependently for them to function efficiently. Again, Darwin hoped with more fossil discoveries, this could be addressed but it's still questionable if it really has been.),

3. The compound eye as a particular example (Darwin said that "to suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances..could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Darwin thought that he just didn't understand natural selection well enough to explain this.)

and 4. The Cambrian explosion (Darwin can't explain, especially through the gradual process of evolution, how there are only 3 simple animal phyla pre-Cambrian times and then at least 26 animal phyla during the Cambrian period but in the half a billion years since, only 4 more animal phyla have been added. Where did all of the new phyla come from and how did they evolve into the complexities of creatures on the earth? Darwin thought there would be more fossils deeper in the earth that could later explain this but it hasn't happened.).

In spite of these flaws, which I have never heard of being discussed in school, people have embraced this theory of evolution so strongly that anybody who disagrees or even asks questions is discredited by the scientific community. In 1993, a group of scientists got together in California (including Dean Kenyon). They had all concluded through their own studies that natural selection could not explain many things about our world. There is evidence of information of a logical structure or some form of intelligence contributing to much of what was occurring. This was considered the early part of 'intelligent design.' It was not relgious. It was entirely science-based. In 1996 the biochemist Michael Behe used the phrase 'irreducible complexity and published supporting information in the book Darwin's Black Box.

This included scientific arguments for intelligent design and some US newspapers gave positive reviews but many others were dismissive and claimed 'intelligent design' was just trying to smuggle in a religious explanation for evolution, although no religious ideas or views were suggested in the book. At this point Darwinians lumped intelligent design ideas in with 'creationism', grouped up with the ACLU to sue to keep this from public schools. The judge said this was a way to teach disguised religion and it should never be taught in schools. The ironic conclusion to these events is that by banning the scientific ideas of intelligent design, calling them religious in nature when they were strictly scientific, now those studying evolution must only come to believe it by taking giant leaps of faith

because that theory as it stood contained huge holes and gaps that could not be explained.