Rachels

A few days ago I told my friend Chandler the Rachel story, he seemed to enjoy it so I decided to share it here. Before I proceed I'm gonna go against tradition and say the moral of the story at the beginning....the moral is this: always put someone's last name in your phone. Here's why...

About 4 years ago I was home from BYU for the summer. I had met a nice girl in my ward named Rachel. I was sorta interested in dating her. There was another Rachel that was a friend of a friend...and she was interested in dating me. I, of course, (since this is the way life always goes) was interested in the girl who's interest in me was as yet undecided...and I was not interested at all in the Rachel who was interested in me. (for ease in reference R1 will now be the Rachel I was interested in and R2 will be the Rachel who was interested in me)

Anyway, when I was home for the summer I wanted to get in touch with R1, and I really wanted to avoid R2. But, of course, I ended up seeing both...and the problem was I went on a date with both the same night. (R2 asked me out and I felt like I had to give her at least one date cause at the time I expected the same courtesy from girls) This is what happened.

I set the date with R2 early in the night so I can get it over with and spend time with R1. I go and pick R2 up, we get dinner, and I drop her off. The problem was this...I received a call from both girls on the same night and I hadn't put the last name of either in my phone.

So this is what happens. I call R2, I pick her up, I get a call from R1 while on the date, I don't take the call (would be rude and all). So, only problem was that R2 had called me sometime in the middle against my knowledge. So, when I called the last Rachel who had called me, I called the girl I had just dropped off...and the conversation went like this.

"Hey Rachel, just dropped her off, glad that's over with." (R1 was aware of the date with R2)

"Uh, this is Rachel." (I don't realize my mistake yet)

"I know. Hi Rachel. It's finally over. When can I pick you up?"

"Danny, what are you talking about, you were just here. This is Rachel."

(Finally realizing my mistake) ...uhh, wait I was just there?

Yeah, you just dropped me off. (cold feeling in my stomach, feeling like a total jerk, mind starts whirling with excuses, retractions, ways of getting out...nothing coming)

So, since I'm so quick on my feet I knew the perfect way to smoothly get out of this....just kidding, all I did was mumble something awkwardly and hang up as fast as I could.

I don't remember what I said exactly, but that was one of the guiltiest moments of my life. I had just dropped a girl off and then expressed my disinterest to her within minutes of dropping her off--by accidentally explaining my disinterest to (what I thought was) another girl. I don't know how she took it. We never spoke again. Honestly, I can't begin to describe how bad I felt. I drove home that night thinking "Wow, I'm a bad human being."

Anyway, the moral of the story: always put someone's last name in your phone. It might save you a very awkward experience.

Decisions Decisions

There are so many decisions to make right now. Honestly, I don't see why the system is set up so that nearly every important decision in your life is made all at the same time....and then you live with the consequences of those decisions the rest of your life.

When it's come to life altering decisions I've always been a bit hesitant. This is probably why it took me nearly 2 years to decide to serve a mission. Strangely, coming to BYU wasn't a very hard decision, but nearly everything else has been. So, I guess it's not surprise that I'm struggling to pick a career

What do you use to calculate such a decision. Potential for money? Life satisfaction? Potential for advancement? How you'll better the world? What you're good at? A bit of all of these?

I've always been blinded by possibilities. It's hard to make a decision when there are so many positive options...and I have a lot of possibilities. Not to sound vain, but I'm pretty sure I could excel in nearly any professional field. I can't think of anything I've studied in school that I wasn't pretty good at. Well, I guess there are some professions I'd be bad at....like professional Basketball (too white) or French studies (don't know French and don't want to learn).

But I'm pretty sure that if I really wanted, I could do nearly anything(I must have had too much encouragement as a kid).

So, what to do? The most immediate and lucrative use of my talents would be law. I know I could make a good living at that. I doubt I'd ever have to worry about a job. The problem is I've been talking to a lot of lawyers...they're not happy people. I have a friend who recently graduated from law school and he's already going through a divorce. He didn't count on working 80 hours a week (what every young lawyer does trying to make a name for themselves) and neither did his wife (soon to be ex-wife). They never see each other, he's stressed, he can't handle the stress, she can't handle how he handle's the stress...and they're calling it quits. That's really scary to me. I want to take into account how my profession will wear on my soul, and I don't know if I'd like the person I'd become as a lawyer. I enjoy debating and thinking, but I don't know if I like the viciousness that seems such a part of law...and I'm afraid that if I was married I'd bring that home with me. Although I'm pretty argumentative, when I argue it's for fun. I never want to hurt anyone. I think I'm a pretty gentle person. So, if I was required to argue to advance myself at the expense of someone else, I'm pretty sure I could do that, and probably quite effectively, but I don't know if I'd be happy.

I think there should probably be more to picking a job than money and convenience. But at the same time I need to be practical. Luckily, I'm not married so I don't have to be practical yet. For all I know maybe that's the reason I'm not married. Cause I know if I was engaged or seriously committed to someone I'd probably become pragmatic and go straight to law. I'd rush my application and attend school in the coming fall, put in my 3 years and make some money. But now, since that's really not a concern, I have some time to think and reflect about the course I'm going to take.

As usual, when I'm really confused about what to do, I went to talk to my mission president. He gave me the same counsel he gave me five years ago: do what I do! I thought about it and I must say...he has a great life. He has a beautiful home, he's well respected, he always had time to be with his family...life has been good for him.

Here are the perks of his job (according to him). 1) you work with real people. 2) it requires you to be creative. 3) you need to write well. 4) you can teach college or you can work in the private sector (if you wanna make the big bucks). 5) it's a growing field so you'd be laying the foundation for a growing discipline. (by the way, his degree is in instructional technology).

This really makes sense for me cause (as my many years in college has demonstrated) I love education. I like the feel of being on a college campus and talking with smart people about their interests. I live for animated discussions where people disagree and work out their ideas through carefully laid out arguments.

But, most of all, my patriarchal blessing says I'd be happy and blessed and able to support a family if I entered the field of education (for my gentile brethren a patriarchal blessing is a priesthood blessing given at the onset of adulthood that gives counsel and advice as well as promises regarding one's life).

So, I think I'm gonna make a compromise. I'm going to take the GRE and apply to some programs in Instructional Technology. I'm still gonna apply to law schools, and if I can get into a top 10 school on a full scholarship I might still go that route (I'd likely be able to teach law which wouldn't be the lawyer lifestyle and I could handle that).

But my profession isn't the only decision I'm struggling with. I'm trying really hard to figure out what to do about that whole marriage thing. I've always liked the idea of getting married, but I've never liked the examples I've seen of marriage. I've seen a lot of couples get divorced lately. I think there is a divorce boom around most people's late 20s. All their friends that married too young and too immaturely, or married for the wrong reasons at about 5 to 10 years realize their mistake and decide to jump ship before they're too old to find someone new. This is really sad and it has been hard for me to watch.

I don't think I'd make it through a divorce. I love people pretty intensely (when I actually do love which is very rare), but this also means that it's harder for me to recover when I love someone and the relationship ends. So, I gotta be really careful regarding whom I marry. I'm gonna get it right the first time or not at all.

But this of course makes me hesitant. Every time I seriously date a girl I begin to wonder things like

If we fought would she want to fix things or hold a grudge
Would she give up if (probably more accurate to say "when") things got rough
Would she take responsibilities as a mother seriously
Would I enjoy being around her 10 years later..20
Can she make me laugh
Does she love God, does she want to raise children that also love God, does she have conviction in these areas?

I guess the thing I would value most is a determination to love God and never give up on the relationship. If those two things are there everything else could probably be worked out. There are some exceptions when a divorce is appropriate, but these are rare exceptions and I think generally people should honor the promises they make to each other.

But how can you tell if someone is consistent? How can you tell their dedication in hard times when times aren't hard? One would think you could figure things out by evaluating their decisiveness...it is reasonable to assume that someone who stands by a decision made in small matters would indicate conviction in larger matters. But, I don't buy that. I know that as far as relationships go I'm very indecisive because I place so much weight on them. Often decisiveness is the daughter of apathy. I know that once I make a decision that I feel good about it I'm invested. Whether it was my missionary service or my education, once I decided to take that route I was immovable. Also, when I've decided I've cared for someone I've also been immovable...which is both good and bad I guess. Anyway, all I"m saying is that I'm on the surface very indecisive in matters of relationships and career...but that's not really true because I'm extremely decisive once the first step is in place (here decisiveness is determined by the subsequent decisions following the initial one (I realize saying I'm decisive after a decision seems strange)).

One other thing I've been thinking about lately is humility. I've been spending time with a lot of good friends in the Philosophy major...a very pompous group at times. Everyone in our group is very bright. Everyone in our group knows they're bright. And they spend so much time talking about smart things...making sure everyone in the group is aware they're bright. I love our discussions but I think I gotta be careful. I hate listening to people talk about how smart they are and how clear their thinking is...and recently I've found myself being flashy with knowledge, being arrogant, talking about my achievements. I really don't want to be a braggart, I don't think I am a braggart at heart, but at times I probably come across as one. Honestly, it's because I find so many subjects so interesting I want to share them with people...not because I want to force people to recognize my education. But I don't know if it comes across that way.

I remember a talk Elder Maxwell gave years ago about this topic. He mentioned how he was never very good at math and his daughter would always ask him for help and he wasn't of much assistance...his area of expertise was political science. Well, one day his daughter had a question about political science and he responded to her with a long and windy discourse about the many different ways of taking the subject. His daughter listened patiently and then said "I just needed to know the short version but thanks." Elder Maxwell said that from this experience he realized that we often teach or share for our own benefit or aggrandizement and not to answer the needs of other people. He knew he wasn't good at math, but was a genius in Political Science...so when the opportunity came he took advantage of it...but too much.

Anyway, I gotta be careful that I don't talk people's ears off talking about what I think is important because I want to sound smart...it's gotta be because I want to help someone or I think they might enjoy what I have to say. I hope I walk this line well but I'm not sure that I do. My philosophy friends make me wonder if maybe I don't toe the line as well as I'd thought, because I doubt they're aware of how they come across.

Well, who knows, maybe I'm overthinking things...it wouldn't be the first time.

Anyway, I hope you're all doing well. Sorry that there wasn't much funny or interesting in this post...it's been pretty reflective. But, I feel better having worked the ideas out (I think better writing...more concrete (also some people have said (why I can't figure out) that they enjoy hearing how I'm doing and what I'm thinking so here ya go)).

Maybe I'll be very grateful someday that it took me so long to find someone to marry...because I have two weak spots regarding decision making--relationships and career. Taking so long has caused me to value relationships more deeply and it has given me time to work through the proper career to take without the pressure of providing for a family. All I know is once I get these two details squared away I'll be focused, ambitious, and dedicated at excelling in both. I guess I just gotta take those first steps.

Okay, now I really am gonna stop writing.

Women Have Come a Long Way

I'm retaking a class from 10 years ago this semester. The class's official title is "The Psychology of Gender." And, although the teacher isn't very good, and the book is pretty boring, there was one quotation in the book that was pretty funny. Now, before I share it here's the disclaimer...


I in no way support the allegations made in this quotation, I only share it so that I can scoff (along with my equals of the gentler sex) at the egregious claims made by this silly ignorant Frenchman.

Anyway, there was this chap back in 1879 named Gustav Lebon...this is what he had to say....

"In the most intelligent races, as among the Parisians, there are a large number of women whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most developed of male brains...All psychologists who have studied the intelligence of women...recognize today that they represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and that they are closer to children and savages than to an adult civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconstancy absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason. Without doubt, there exist some distinguished women, very superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as, for example, of a gorilla with two heads."

Crazy! This guy must have been very lonely. Also, unless he was very courageous, he probably made sure that comment was published after his death. If not, it's possible that some intelligent women (aka gorilla like monstrosities) tore him apart.

I love the irony in how he declaims how women think while writing (and by extension reasoning) so poorly. For example, the guy writes that women excel in fickleness and inconstancy...when inconstancy is an extension of fickleness, and then he lists not thinking and not being logical and incapacity to reason...and once again logic is an extension of thinking and incapacity to reason is an extension of absence of logic.

So, the guy kinda demonstrates bad thinking in the attempt to point at bad thinking. Redundancy is redundancy. Or as this guy (Gustav) would write: dumb is stupid.

Oh, and speaking of stupid...I went to one of the worst church meetings of my life last night (I'm speaking objectively here...I'm reporting not apostatizing).

Last night the stake presidency had a leadership training. The way the meeting went was we had an opening part where a member of the presidency spoke (good talk by the way) and then we broke off into smaller meetings to discuss our individual callings. I don't know the guy who did our meeting...but it was really really bad. Here's how it went:

We were supposed to talk on how to conduct an effective meeting but he started off by sharing a little flow chart his son had made while working in a prison. The chart tried to explain the leadership methods of Satan and God. The guy said that God works by persuasion alone, and that Satan always uses force. This is just dead wrong. There are many evidences of God using coercion.

For example: Jonah and the whale. Jonah wanted to go the other way, it wasn't until God sent a whale to swallow him up that he did what he was supposed to...that's not really a choice. Now, you could argue that Jonah could have still gone the other way...but really? If he was swallowed by a whale every time he went the wrong way...then going the right way wasn't really a choice. Now it's an analytic truth that a free will is free.... if not it wouldn't be a free will... but God can limit all our options so that we behave in a specific way...and this is coercive power (even if it's a weak form of coercive power). So, when the guy said that coercive power is the Satanic method I was a little put off.

Next he discussed how Satan always uses force. It's a commonly spoken (and I feel true) adage that Satan only has power over us as we give it to him. That is, when we open ourselves up to his temptations. He can't do anything to us against our will..it's our sins that give him access to our lives...but this guys argument is that Satan always works by force. How can that be the case when he can only control us as we give him permission through sin? Satan can only work on us when our poor decisions give him permission....which is the exact opposite of this man's point.

To be accurate he should have been something like "Satan tries to enslave us, but he must have our permission to do so, while God respects our freedom and only interferes for some greater good." That would have at least been consistent with scripture.

Anyway, this wouldn't be such a big deal. I mean, I can handle a poorly thought out idea without getting annoyed...what was troublesome was this guy was supposed to be training us on how to conduct effective meetings. The irony here is we spent 30 minutes discussing the beauty of an inaccurate diagram and we neglected what we gathered to discuss: how to conduct effective meetings. At 5 minutes before the meeting had to end he said "oh my goodness, we don't have any time left. Well, all I can say is that to conduct an effective meeting you need to use time wisely, have an agenda, and stick to it."

This is when I finally realized how clever this man was....the whole meeting was an object lesson. He taught us the downfall of doing the very thing he was warning us against: wasting time. What he did was waste 30 minutes covering an irrelevant an inaccurate diagram, and then he used the last 5 minutes to rush through the principles of an effective meeting...thereby demonstrating how he had squandered the previous 30 minutes. After this painful lesson I walked away well instructed. I never want to subject anyone to 30 minutes of boredom, and then cram 30 minutes worth of material into 5 minutes...so in the future I will carefully plan the meetings I conduct... and stick to an agenda.

I see what he did there.....that clever clever man.

Oh, and to complete the randomness of this post here is a sentence from a paper I just turned in for that Gender class (I'm responding to the argument that ALL rapists are loser men who rape women because they want to pass on their genetics but are unable to convince a woman to reproduce with them through the usual methods)....

My paper:
"Research has shown that rape is more frequently a crime of violence rather than passion. Men who rape women usually want to punish women in some way, not pass on their genes (well I guess sometimes rapists pass on wearing jeans)."

Sometimes I just try to make sure that professors aren't bored reading my papers.

The Old Man and the Sea

Well, I can't sleep and I'm thinking about The Old Man and the Sea. This is a really beautiful book, but it's definitely not an action packed book, it's a very calm story, but probably one of the most emotionally charged books I've ever read. For me, stories become more meaningful when I know the context. So, to that end, here is a little info about The Old Man and the Sea.

The Old Man and the Sea was Hemmingway's first successful novel after For Whom the Bell Tolls. It was the last novel he published in his lifetime. When he wrote the novel, he was pretty sure it would be his last....and he was a bit hesitant/nervous because his last few novels weren't very good.

The novel centers around an aged fisherman named Santiago. Santiago is a good and seasoned fisherman, but he hasn't caught anything in 84 days. He's in Cuba and the people are a bit superstitious, so they take his failure to catch anything as some sort of dark omen. What is interesting is that this directly parallels Hemmingway's life. Hemmingway is the wise old fisherman....Santiago hadn't caught a fish in 84 days...Hemmingway hadn't published a successful book in years, Santiago was wise, old and ready to die, Hemmingway was old, tired and ready to retire...Santiago catches the biggest fish of his life but it is destroyed by sharks....Hemmingway writes his greatest story, but it's attacked by critics (who eventually come around and recommended he receive the Nobel Prize in literature (which he does)).

The story is really about growing up, passing on knowledge, respecting but facing opposition...it's about fearlessly facing loss and holding to what you value most.

Here's a few quotations that show what I mean

"Anyone can be a fisherman in May."

"Now is the time to think of only one thing: that which I was born for."

"But a man is not made for defeat. A man can be destroyed but not defeated."

"Then he rested against the bow. He rested sitting on the un-stepped mast and sail and tried not to think but only to endure."

Aren't those great? Great writing packed with wisdom...resting just below the surface.

Probably the best part of the book is the relationship between the old man and the boy. It's a true mentoring relationship. There is so much loyalty and love between the two characters. The boy is willing to sacrifice everything to be with the man who taught him how to fish, even if that means failure as a fisherman. And the old man returns that devotion by making sure the boy fishes without him if it means the boy will have success (even though he constantly says (as he's alone at sea) "I wish the boy was with me").

One other interesting part of the novella is the Christian symbolism. The old man is definitely a Christ figure. Here are a few examples.

When the old man fights with the fish he faces his mortality, but he faces his trial stoically. The old man stands alone while everything surrounding him wells up against him, but he perseveres because of the tremendous value he saw in his task and because he felt it was what he was "born for." As he's fighting with the fish the palms of his hands are lacerated paralleling the nails in Christ's hands. As the old man docks his boat and carries the corpse of the Marlin home he straps it onto his back and walks up the hill in a reference to Christ carrying the cross up to Calvary. When the old man collapses on his bed in exhaustion he lies on his bed with his arms extended and palms up as Christ was thought to have hung on the cross.

Anyway, there is just so much to this novel. It really is a beautiful story. It covers so many themes...ranging from devotion, mentorship, loyalty, faith, determination, transcendence, and love.

It certainly isn't a fast paced novel...but it shouldn't be, because fast past isn't the proper speed for this kind of story. The Old Man and the Sea is a reflective novel that covers some of the most sensitive subjects imaginable. So, appropriately, it moves slowly, carefully, and methodically. The Old Man and the Sea is a wonderful story/allegory..and it's really short....so read it!

Anyway, that's my soapbox for the day. Hope you all have a good one.

Nerds vs Geeks

Just recently someone asked me a question regarding something I'm passionate about. As I began to explain my position (waving my hands getting animated and all that) the person shook their head and lovingly said (at least it felt lovingly, maybe it was just a simple observation) "you're a nerd."

After they said that I got to thinking. Am I a nerd? I've never really thought of myself as a nerd. But maybe I am. I mean, I like school, I like to learn, I like science fiction, I like fantasy novels, I like the occasional Star Trek episode....lots of nerdy things. Does that make me a nerd?

The way I see it is, if these things make me a nerd, then someone's nerdiness is determined by interests alone. But if nerdiness is determined by interests alone, does that mean that someone who has nerdy interests but also cool interests, like shooting guns, playing football, and discussing fine wines...does that make the person nerdy or cool ?....is there some sort of balance that must be struck? Is someone with more nerdy interests than cool interests a nerd? Does having any nerdy interest make you a nerd regardless of how many cool interests you have? Is there a sort of gradation in nerdiness...are there ultra-nerds with nothing but nerdy interests, jocks with nothing but cool interests, and then everyone else in between?

I've always thought that the word "nerd" needed a better definition. Sometimes it's used derogatorily, sometimes its used affectionately (as it was hopefully used with me). Are those both current uses for the word or has the word shifted and it used to be derogatory but now its cool? (cause nerds are not protagonists in film, nerds now get girls, and nerds usually make money)

My thoughts on the subject are the following: I think there are two types of nerds, and that within each type there are varying degrees of nerdiness, and from these distinctions I account for every species of nerd. Let me explain.

Nerd types: Voluntary and involuntary.

Voluntary: a voluntary nerd is one that recognizes that they have nerdy interests but they are comfortable enough with who they are that they embrace those nerdy interests. These nerds usually are quite bright and are drawn to nerdy things, not because they are dorky (a word which will be defined later) but because they are just so naturally intelligent that they're drawn to harder subjects that they excel in (people enjoy doing what they're good at). Voluntary nerds come in various levels. Some freely choose the celibate and lonely life of nerddom because they can't find challenging companionship in any other way. At the other end of the spectrum are cool people who dabble in nerdiness. These are "closet nerds." They are socially undetectable and can only be found out witnessing their all too polished discourse on a nerdy topic, or by finding a D&D board under their bed.

When someone calls a voluntary nerd a nerd it's usually a compliment, or it's endearing (as I hope it was in my case). This is a compliment because the nerd has control over their nerdiness, and since nerdiness is a lifestyle choice, they can easily give up the nerdiness if they need to to pursue cooler things.

Involuntary nerd: an involuntary nerd is, as the name implies, a nerd that has no control over their nerdiness. These are people that are usually unintentionally socially awkward (if you do it on purpose you're a voluntary nerd). These people usually have an awkward laugh. These people usually go on and on on a topic long after people are bored. Involuntary nerds are nerds by birth, not by choice. If they wanted to be cool they would fail. Involuntary nerds are usually frail and unathletic, normally a painful introvert, and unattractive. However, a nerd of this type, even though they lost the genetic lottery in many ways, is quite intelligent and consummately competent in at least one highly technical area.

Now, earlier I mentioned that it seems as if nerds are determined by their interests, and that the more nerdy interests one has the more nerdy one is. However, as can be seen with the voluntary/involuntary distinction, nerds are only determined by interests in the voluntary case. So, one who chooses to be a nerd is a nerd by interest. Involuntary nerds are nerds by birthright, and, regardless of their interests, they will always be nerds.

So, with these rules in place am I a nerd. I would have to say yes, but I feel I'm a nerd by choice. That is why the person didn't insult me. They said nerd in the sense of "you're smart" or "you're interested in difficult subjects." I am pretty sure that I'm not a nerd in the involuntary sense...I could stop doing well in school, never watch a Star Trek episode again, and spend all my time cultivating and excelling in cool pursuits...I just choose not to. So, I think I'm in the clear on this one.

Anyway, you might have a few questions. You might be thinking:

Isn't an involuntary nerd a geek or a dork? If an involuntary nerd is not a geek, what is a geek?

Well, here is what someone on some website wrote about the subject....

"The terms 'nerd' and 'geek' are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same.

A 'nerd' is someone with an extremely intense interest or fascination in an academic field of study (often an obscure field). Being a nerd is typically associated with intellect, as they often enjoy specialising in complicated fields of study. Nerds may also have difficulties socialising with others, as they may border on being classified as a 'genius'. An alternative definition is that a nerd is often (but not always) very intelligent, and has 'skillz', spelled with a 'z' to indicate that the skill set is uncommon, or perhaps impractical. This may cover a broad range of interests, from movies to games (video and table-top), to more practical skills such as computer science.
In simple terms, nerd is obsession.

A 'geek' is someone with an interest or lifestyle, usually an obscure one, having to do with computers, science fiction, etc. For example Star Trek, World of Warcraft,Watching One Piece or anything like that are typical areas of interest. Geeks can vary in their interests, from fun and sometimes even frivolous things, to heavy technological influences. An alternative definition of 'geek' is someone who is a nerd without 'skillz'.
In simple terms, geek is obsession with immense knowledge."

This distinction seems to imply that a geek is a failed nerd, or someone without "skillz." However, they really failed at the last part of the definitions. At the end of nerd they say "nerd is obsession" and that geek s "obsession with immense knowledge." From their "simplified" accounts of the terms they merely make a geek a nerd with "immense knowledge." The real distinction they make is the skillz one. A nerd has skillz, a geek does not. However, if skillz is tremendous proficiency in an uncommon skillset, then a geek would be a nerd in the sense that they at least have proficiency in random useless knowledge.

Personally, I think the distinction isn't quite what most people think. I think nerds and geeks aren't separate classes, I think nerds are just elevated geeks. I think a geek is someone that has the interest, but the nerd is someone who excels in that interest. So, all nerds are geeks, but not all geeks are nerds--some people love things they are horrible at. And, since geeky interests are often uncommon, that satisfies the early qualification in the definition that a nerd has an uncommon skillset.

So, I have now accounted for the two different types of nerds, how they relate to geeks (proficient geeks), and now I will discuss dorks.

I think "dork" is a term that refers to involuntary geeks. A dork is the socially awkward geek...but it's not because of any interest...a dork is born a dork. Dorks are people that couldn't be cool if they wanted to (unlike voluntary nerds who can). Dorks are drawn to hang out with the outliers because the outliers accept them (the dungeon masters and live action role players of the world).

Now, I'm not condoning these classifications...I'm only attempting to make the classifications clear. If anyone disagrees with my conclusions feel free to comment.

Anyway, I think I'm a voluntary nerd, and I'm cool with that. I was going to make a Venn diagram to accompany this post and visually represent the various types of nerds geeks and dorks and how they relate...but I figured that would be too nerdy.

Hope you all have a great day.

Today

Hey everyone,
Well, today on the walk to and from school I got some thinking done. I'm just gonna go over a few things that crossed my mind.

First off, I don't get angry very often, but today I did. Here is what happened.

I was in the school cafeteria. I was in line to get some Italian food. As I'm waiting in line I'm reading my metalogic textbook. I step up to the register to pay, and as I'm paying, right next to me, there is a girl using the soda fountain to fill up the drink that came with her meal. As she pushes the cup into the fountain to set off the trigger to pour her drink, the soda filter (you know, the fine wire mesh that the water goes through so it comes out straight) flew off, and sticky soda shot everywhere. So, soda shot all over the poor girl's blouse (maybe it was a shirt, I can never tell the difference), and soda got on my shirt, my pants, my shoes....but most importantly--on my textbook.

Now, I really love my books, and I just don't handle water damage on a book very well. I was so furious. But, unfortunately, I couldn't direct my anger anywhere. I mean, the girl who poured the drink was a victim also, the girl at the register was most likely not the person who didn't fully screw on the filter....the person I wanted to talk to could have been anywhere, so I just got a really annoyed look on my face. The girl at the register could tell I wasn't very happy (she must have thought I was annoyed at my damaged clothes) but I wasn't mad about my clothes...I wasn't even mad for myself...I was mad for my poor defenseless book.

I took the book to a table and tried to use water to make sure the pages wouldn't stick or get stained, but it was too little and too late...my book will forever be damaged, hideous...oh, so sad. It was a young book, I hadn't even read it all the way through yet.

As I made it to my table to eat my meal I tried to read more of the book, but I just couldn't, cause every time I turned a page I heard the crinkling sound of the damaged page (you know how paper when it gets wet gets all brittle and crinkly...that's what happened). Every time I moved the book it made a sound and reopened the wounds I felt at having my book wounded.

I think I'm going to have to retype the damaged page and have the book rebound, or maybe I'll just pull the page and out and memorize the information on it very well then throw it away, or maybe I'll ....oh, I don't know. Maybe I should just put my book OCD aside and let it go. I just don't know if I'll be able to.

Anyway, as I sat fuming at the injustices of the world I thought back to a time a few years ago when I was taking a history of philosophy course. On the last day of that class my professor brought us all drinks and sandwiches to eat while we took the final. The girl behind me was drinking grape juice and she rested her cup on the edge of her desk. It was perched precariously so I asked her if she'd move it, but she said it would be fine and I didn't want to argue with her, so I forgot about it. I was sitting immediately in front of her, and my backpack was sitting on the left side of my desk where I could easily reach in with my left hand to pull papers out. I finished my final early and went up to talk to the professor and hand it in. We get into an animated discussion. After our conversation was done I went back to my desk to put my things away and go home. But as I picked my backpack up to put it on my shoulder I realized something horrible had happened...purple liquid started to pour out of my backpack and onto my shirt...there was grape juice in my backpack.

This was a huge problem for the following reasons:

Since it was the end of the semester I had just written a long research paper and I had 4 library books in my backpack that I needed to return.....books now covered in grape juice.

I had all of my notes for the semester in a 5 subject notebook, the drink landed directly on the notebook and the juice seeped through every page.

When I put the backpack on it the juice inside my backpack dripped down my back as I swung it on my shoulder effectively staining a white shirt.

And...well, I'm sure there are more things that went bad but I can't remember what they are right now.

So, what happened was (piecing things together from someone who saw the accident) that the girl had picked up her things and finished the test, had left the drink on her desk, and as she went down the aisle her backpack hit her cup and knocked the cup into my eagerly awaiting backpack...where the cup rested on its side on top of the large collection of library books (that were so wide that the backpack sat upright with the mouth open...just waiting for someone to pour a drink inside).

About half of the drink stayed in the partially upright cup, the rest pooled at the bottom of my semi-waterproof backpack....I say semi-waterproof because my moving the thing definitely made the material permeable enough for it to get all over me.

Anyway, I immediately ran to the bathroom and washed the books, tried to dry off my notes, but nothing doing...they were all damaged. I returned the books and they said they'd fine me. I argued with them for about 20 minutes (although technically I was responsible) and they let me slide on replacing the books, but the real problem was my notes.

To this day I never read my notes from that semester. Every once in a while I have a question and I refer back to my previous notes...and then when I realize I had taken that class during the grape juice semester I stop looking, cause the notes are disgusting...they're purple and they stick together, and the pages aren't flat ...it just makes me sad.

Anyway, that was the story of the grape juice in my backpack, and I was reminded of that incident by today's debacle.

As I thought about these two incidents I realized that I really have problem owning books around thirsty people. I also noticed that I don't get mad very often...just when it's a loved one or a book that is injured (but in a way they're the same thing).

I think today was the first day I've been mad in a long time, I think the last time might even be when the grape juice incident happened. I get annoyed almost every day, but I rarely get fuming mad. Today was one of those days, and the last time was 2 years ago...so I guess I'm doing okay.

Anyway, right after all this happened I sat down and started to eat and my friend stopped by. We had a long conversation and I already wrote a post about it...but if I post both together I'll go over my set limit of 2000 words...so I'll publish the rest of the post tomorrow as a second installment of today's adventures. Hope you're all doing spiffy.

School

Well, back to school. This semester is a really weird one. It's actually sorta poetic...I'm taking my first semester of college over again. You see, 10 years ago I had just graduated from high school and I was hired on at Sav-On Pharmacy. I worked more than 40 hours every week....and I really didn't take school seriously...so, I stopped going to most of my classes about half-way through and focused on my job instead. This of course led to a horrible semester...so now I gotta retake those classes cause if I don't I won't graduate with high honors, and it's a shame to do extremely well for 5 years and then blow everything with 1 bad semester. So, now, 10 years later, I'm retaking those classes, and that's why this semester is sorta poetic--you know, ending where I began and all of that.

What's really funny is that (because I'm retaking my first semester) I have classes like "Intro to Philosophy." I mean, I have my degree in philosophy completed and I'm taking a class with this description: "for non-philosophy majors who have no previous experience studying philosophy."

Oh well, it's going to be interesting. I've actually audited a class from the professor before so I know him a little. What's funny is that he starts all of his classes the same way. He begins by saying, "before we can discuss philosophy, we must first understand what philosophy is" and then he asks the students for their definitions. Every time someone offers a definition he says why it's wrong...over the course of 3 class periods he exhausts all possible wrong answers and then wows the class by stepping in and sharing the carefully worded definition that he's worked on over the past few years. But, since I'd heard the lecture before, I knew exactly where he was going...so when he asked for a definition of philosophy I recited back to him his own definition (the one we get to end the topic on day 3 (I had memorized it because I thought it was a good one)). After I answered I felt kind of bad cause I realized that I'd messed up his lesson plans for the next 3 periods...or, at the very least, I'd taken away the punchline from day 3.

I could tell he was sort of annoyed, it was like I told the last part of a joke first. Oh well, I'll keep my mouth shut in the future.

Then, to make things even worse, after the class was over I headed over to the elevator to go to the philosophy study room....which is where the professor's offices are. As I got in the elevator, the professor whose lesson I had just hijacked stepped in. I could tell he was still a little annoyed with me, but he didn't say anything.

Anyway, as we got in another guy stepped in too...this guy had a huge cast on his leg. The elevator doors closed and we started our ascent...but stopped just one floor up (on the main floor). The guy with the leg in his cast started to walk out, but before he left I said "geez man, just going up one floor? You should use the stairs next time." I thought he'd catch on that I was joking (I mean, he had a huge cast on his leg, it seemed pretty obvious)...but the guy just got uncomfortable and he said "oh yeah, sorry about that, I will next time."

Man! that guy got me so good, he took a harmless joke and turned it on me (accidentally--but he still turned it) and made me look like a total jerk...and right in front of the professor who already was annoyed with me for ruining his lesson.

Next I went to an Intro to Sociology class. This is a freshman course with about 110 students or so. As usual on the first day the professor started to go over the syllabus...and man he was sloppy. This guy had typos everywhere...and he just couldn't connect his sentences very well. His writing jarred against my brain...it made me squirm like I do when someone is singing off pitch or scratching a chalkboard.

Anyway, after about 10 minutes of this I had had enough. He had a particularly nasty sentence that ended with "and I will help you open your eyes, see that things aren't what they seem, and I will help you see that some of your opinions are wrong."

At this point I couldn't take anymore. I raised my hand and said "not to be confrontational or critical, but could you give me an example of a wrong opinion."

He ranted something off, but I think he could tell from my face that I wasn't buying it...so after class he asked me what I didn't understand. I told him, "It's not a matter of understanding you, I just think you used the word 'opinion' incorrectly. You said that some of us students have 'wrong opinions.' An opinion can't be wrong because an opinion is an assertion made about something with no clear answer... An opinion is either good or bad, but it can't be right or wrong...facts are right or wrong....So, you can either say you will teach us that we have our facts wrong, or you can say that we have bad opinions, but you can't say that we have wrong opinions."

The guy was really good about everything and he nodded his head and said "I never thought of that, thanks, I'll fix it later." I'm just really lucky that he's a humble man, cause I think I would have been annoyed if some punk kid corrected me like that (especially some punk kid in a freshman level course)...but I at least had the good taste to not correct him in front of everyone...and he did ask me for clarification after all. To be honest, I only spoke out cause I was planning on dropping the class... but since the guy was so gracious I think I'll stay.

So, school is off...and, as usual, I've made some horrible first impressions. In one day I managed to make 3 different people uncomfortable, awkward ,and annoyed. I really need to work on my first impressions. But, on the bright side, when you're like me and you make horrible first impressions, it doesn't take much to impress people.