Observations on the Art of Acting from a Non-Actor

Occasionally I break my promise not to read the comments on videos.  It wasn't a deliberate act. I was scrolling to find a link at the bottom of the page when I saw this comment under an interview with Jim Parsons of the Big Bang Theory on CBS.com:

"I find it weird when actors separate themselves from their characters."

My first thought was "Someone is very unclear about the concept of acting."  And I could be very correct about that.  But at the same time, not all actors approach the art of acting in the same way.  Jim Parsons couldn't play Sheldon Cooper if he was like Sheldon Cooper, because a personality like Sheldon could never be an actor. Parsons doesn't even have the same interests. In his own words:

I don’t feel like I’m bringing much of anything when it comes to personal experience with him. For one, he doesn’t talk about anything that I have second nature of. Not only do I not have my own language for science, but for comic books, graphic novels, most science fiction, after Star Wars. I think this has been to my benefit and allowed me to connect with him more on a humanistic level because I don’t really get what he’s talking about 90% of the time.

From http://techland.time.com/2010/09/23/big-bang-theory-the-jim-parsons-interview/2/


People like Sheldon aren't emotionally aware enough to portray a realistic and humanistic view of themselves.  You need someone like Jim Parsons, who can portray him in a way that the rest of us can understand and identify with, while still being able to recognize as someone who is quite different from ourselves.  The same thing goes for the Evil Version of Wil Wheaton on The Big Bang Theory:

When he first talked to me about working on the show, Bill Prady told me that I'd be playing a "delightfully evil version" of myself. This sounded like a lot of fun to me, but it was more difficult to find that character than you'd think. When I'm playing Fawkes on The Guild it's easy to slip into his kilt and be a jerk, but wearing my own clothes and essentially playing a stylized version of myself made it a real challenge to hit "delightfully evil" without veering into "not committed to being delightfully evil" or "just plain evil." Keeping that twinkle in my eye, and knowing that Wil Wheaton (The Big Bang Version) is planning to scam Sheldon from the moment he sits down, was essential to this particular characterization working out, and I didn't completely find it until we'd run the episode a couple of times.

During one of the run throughs, when Jim did his Klingon bit, I turned to Kevin and asked him, "Did he just say 'revenge is a dish best served cold' in Klingon?" like I was trying to figure out if that's actually what happened, like maybe I misunderstood him. Chuck Lorre told me that it would be funnier if I was more exasperated. "You're just here to play this game, and now some guy is quoting Klingon at you. This happens everywhere you go," he said.

I sighed dramatically, and said, "Oh, it does." Everyone laughed, hard, and Chuck pointed his finger at me. "Yes. That is exactly the way to play that beat."

When Chuck gave me that note, I grokked how to play Evil Wil Wheaton (The Big Bang Theory version), and I could see the comedy in every beat I played for the rest of the show. I totally grew a level in comedy acting, and learned something about letting go of who I really am, so I could embrace the Delightfully Evil version of myself (who I seriously hope will return in the future, because OMG was it fun to play him.)

From http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2009/10/the-creepy-candy-coating-corollary.html


I think the evil version of Wheaton works because in reality, he's so not that way and is able to play a jerk because he doesn't have to be in denial that what he is doing is obnoxious.  He doesn't have to defend it or minimize it because it's not really him - it's a warped-alternate-reality him.  Of course, this is comedy, so exaggeration in proper amounts is essential for success.  This may also be why people say comedic acting is actually harder than dramatic acting.  You almost have to step outside yourself to be able to deliver these lines without becoming self-conscious about the whole thing.

Now on the other end of things, you have Viggo Mortensen who played Aragon in The Lord of the Rings.  By all accounts, Mortensen practically became Aragon. He carried his sword with him even into town and actually spent his days off riding the horses he used and even bought them because he bonded with them.  Being a dramatic actor, he goes to great lengths to become the character he's playing.  For Everybody Has a Plan, he learned his character's hobby, beekeeping.  He explains how he prepares for a role:

I think part of it is just how you prepare roles. When I prepare, I ask a simple question: “What happened between the character’s birth and page one of the script?” And right there you can find most of the answers, even before you start shooting. I find that process really enjoyable. Just like a kid does when he pretends: It doesn’t matter how little they look like a princess or an Indian or a Viking or a sports star, whatever they’re pretending to be, they really believe it. They enjoy playing, basically. So the goal is always — in a very serious, methodical, detailed, much more layered way, I suppose, intellectually, than kids use for make-believe — to get to the same place where it’s just fun and play. But you have to do your homework first, and that’s what I try to do.

From http://www.vulture.com/2013/03/viggo-mortensen-everybody-has-a-plan-interview.html

He's not kidding about being more layered.  He's not just playing Agustín in the movie, he also plays Agustín's ailing twin brother Pedro, and then plays Agustín pretending to be Pedro.  I haven't seen the movie, but based on the trailers, I don't see much of Aragon in those characters.  And let's face it, outside of cult films, an actor who can only play one character isn't going to be that successful.

Helen Mirren, who does an awesome job in both dramatic and comedic roles, approaches her craft much differently than Mortensen:

A light bulb went on in my brain. I thought, ‘That’s it! Just play what’s on the page.’ I’ve followed that ever since. If it says, ‘Over-the-hill, angry woman with no makeup gets out of bed,’ that’s what I’ll play. I don’t mess it up with, ‘What’s her back story?’

From http://www.simplyhelen.net/category/interviews/

Obviously, there are many different ways to be an actor.  You can be like Robin Williams and ad-lib when the spirit hits you, leaving the director and editors decide what fits with the story content-wise. Or you can be like Ian McDiarmid and memorize the scripts so thoroughly that you can easily change the delivery of said lines to fit the mood of the story, without derailing anything later in the plot.  It all depends on what works for you and the role you're playing.

Back to the young lady who posted the comment that started all of this musing.  While it would be easy to dismiss her as just lacking in knowledge, it's very possible that perhaps she, herself, doesn't have the capacity to separate - to imagine herself as someone much different than she is - to get inside someone else's experience.  So, it would be extremely mystifying that people can do this; she may even think that they really aren't doing what they say the are.

I'm just as guilty about this.  For over 30 years, I could never understand why people would not only eat cilantro, but relish it. To me, cilantro tastes like liquid dish soap.  I had assumed that people must have deliberately cultivated their love for the taste of soap, for reasons I couldn't fathom.  The closest I came to a reasonable explanation was to think that maybe they had their mouths washed out with soap too often as children, but that wouldn't explain the wide-spread acceptance of cilantro as a culinary mainstay. Then one day my best friend took me to a Mexican restaurant for lunch because I needed to get out of the house.  Already in a grumpy mood, I complained about the salsa dish not being rinsed out properly. She was about to ask the waiter to bring me another bowl, but I told her not to worry, I would just take my salsa from the center.  Then I tasted soap again, only this time I paused a moment and detected the taste of leaf behind it.  "Oh, it's cilantro," I said in a disgusted tone.  I then launched into my I-can't-believe-people-like-this-stuff rant, when she interrupted me with "Cilantro tastes like soap to you?" I nodded and she excitedly explained how they were discussing on her foodie mailing list that about one third of the population has a genetic tendency to taste cilantro as soap. She was extremely stoked to find out that she knew someone in real life that had this condition.  And I realized after all those years that the rest of humanity wasn't actually insane when it came to this herb, they just weren't tasting it the same way I was.

So, in answer to the woman who commented - actors separate themselves from their characters because that really is how they experience it.  Even though Jim Parsons "becomes" Sheldon for short periods of time, he's not Sheldon.  He's not a comic book geek.  He's not an arrogant physicist, who looks down on others.  He's no where near as socially clueless as Sheldon.  He's not even heterosexual.  But he can portray a character who is all of those.

And it's okay that you don't have the ability to separate from yourself and an imagined self.  I have several friends like that.  I used to think that they were like that because they were afraid of losing themselves in some way, or of weakening their moral compass.  But as I've grown older and studied more, I've found out that for some people, that's just the way their consciousness works.  Sure it frustrates the hell out of me sometimes when you're not able to understand any view different from your own, because running separate mental simulations is how I explore concepts and achieve empathy to a level that I am not naturally gifted with.  But I realize that I can be just as frustrating to you too.


I'm not sure how to exactly transition in this story into this post, but I really have the impression that it belongs here as part of the discussion of being someone else other than yourself. Many years ago, I created a persona for an online group my kids initially wanted to be a part of.  She was brash, out-spoken, devious, and a born leader.  She was also a Slytherin head of house. Even though my daughter lost interest in the online group, she liked pretending to talk to Prof. Mysteria Ester Paracelsus, and we had fun pretending together.  Then one day she came up to me, looking glum, and asked if she could talk to Mysteria.  I assumed that she just wanted to be cheered up, so I played along.  To my shock, she began to tell me about something that happened at school that upset her.  Staying in character, I gave her Mysteria's solution to such a problem - a solution that I would never advocate as her real mother.  Then I dropped the character and reminded her that I was always there for her; and that I didn't approve of the solution my alter-ego just gave.  She said, "I know, Mom.  You would have suggested (...), but I really needed to talk to someone who has no problem kicking butt."  I realized then that what she needed was a way to stand up for herself, not a way to be diplomatic and civil.

Some days, I think I need to channel Mysteria more often...

The Importance of Qualitative Research

For five years I worked as a Quality Assurance Technician/Specialist for a major corporation, before I took time off to be a stay at home mom. Most of my work revolved around routine quantitative tests and research at the national QA lab. However, I had the opportunity to work on some investigative research during that time. One nice thing about doing internal research for a major corporation is that you don't really have the option to put a spin on your test results. There is always an external bottom line that you are accountable to. While in the academic and sales world, some researchers can talk circles around their results and still retain their positions, in the quality assurance world, if your research is faulty, it shows in the product and in the accounting. Faulty quality research costs a company money and can get you fired.

During my time in the QA field, I learned several things about research. First off, it's extremely easy to end up measuring the wrong thing. I cannot emphasis that point enough. During my first year, I was the technician for a new engineer, and he and I found this out firsthand. We even had a strong disagreement over one test on this matter. I noticed that there was something weird going on with my test results and brought it to his attention. He wanted to wave it away, because my results were confirming his hypothesis. If there is one thing I hate doing, it's fudging data. So I told him flat out that it may prove his hypothesis, but as a technician, I was not going to stand by the results. He finally told me that I could repeat the test. I'm sure he was expecting me to back down because he knew I hated doing that particular test, especially for the number of repetition he was asking for. Instead I agreed and then after clarifying that I would be doing the test the same way as I had the first time, I asked if I could switch the order of the samples. He agreed and the next set of results showed that I was right. To the engineer's credit, he then accepted that he was mistaken, listened to my observations, and figured out what actually was going on - and was able to confirm it. A few years later, he borrowed me back from the manager I was then working with, because he had a $5 million bizarre problem to solve and he wanted a technician who would tell him if things were looking screwy.

Between those times I worked for that one engineer, I worked for a manager who had been a university professor at an engineering school before working for the company. I was given the task to compare two types of color measuring machines. (Since, to the best of my knowledge, no one reading this blog is in the flexible packaging field, I'll dispense with the technical names.) The newer one was developed for the auto industry and we needed to see if it could meet our needs. Before I could even begin to compare the two machines, I had to do a search of the literature before I could even have an idea what I was actually testing. I also talked to our R&D packaging scientist and the manufacturer's representatives. I even resorted to going through my mother's old books on painting with color, which provided me with a lot more on the subject than I originally expected.

In short, under the direction of my manager, I did qualitative research before I started anything quantitative. That's because it's the qualitative research that shows you what you should be measuring. Most people don't understand that. When I took the research methods class for my masters, I really had to bite my tongue not to go into an impassioned rant over the necessity of qualitative research as a precursor of decent quantitative research. The R&D scientist I worked with for the color project was brillant and a good deal of his brillance came from the fact that he did his qualitative research before he launched his quantitative research. In the quality assurance world, measuring the wrong thing costs money and jobs. There's no time for weak research based on "well, this sounds like this might be the cause." You need to have solid reasons for your choices before you can even start your tests and in the corporate world, those choices are challenged more stringently than what I've seen so far in the academic world. Of course, this may not be the case on the doctorate level. I hope that is the case when I go back to school for my doctorate, because through my quality assurance training I have developed an obsession with doing thorough background research before I develop a test procedure. This is the reason my capstone is basically a literary review, because I would rather do a thorough literary review than a half-thought out series of qualitative tests.

Actually, I'm not sure I can even bring myself to do testing before doing a literary review. You see, my last job with this company was manufacturing defects coordinator. I was transferred to a plant to help them reduce their packaging defects. The plant management was convinced that the suppliers were sending them inferior flexible packaging. I spent the first few months testing roll stock to confirm that this plant was getting the same quality of packaging that all the others were. The plant manager didn't take that very well and I was told that I had six months to find out what the problem was or my job would be eliminated. For the first two or three months, management kept giving me things they wanted me to test for them as possible causes for their high defect rate. Out of pure preservation, I began to study other possible contributing factors. I used my connections with the national lab to talk to the engineers who trained the trainers who taught the packaging machine operators how to do their jobs. These were also the same guys who followed up on the quality of the machine maintenance people. They assured me that the trainers and the plant maintenance people where I was at were top notched. I talked with the trainers in the plant and made friends with the maintenance guys. It was obvious from their dedication and knowledge that they were, indeed doing their part. It was also obvious through the observed quality of their work, which they gladly let me examine.

I knew we were all missing something, but I couldn't figure out what it was while doing all the tests to make management feel better. So, I took a stand and reminded them that they brought me there because I was a specialist and if they were going to make me accountable for this, then they needed to let me do the job I was brought in for. Again, the plant manager was not impressed, but I figured I was doomed anyway with the way things were going, so I stood my ground. He said he wanted me to do line audits. In the past, I had been doing warehouse audits because no one wanted me to interrupt their production flow. I told him that I would do it on the grounds that I created my own audit criteria. To make everyone happy, I put in every common packing flaw that could be seen by a non-destructive inspection. However, well aware that I still had no idea what the real problem was, I made sure I made a space on my audit forms for comments - just in case I stumbled across a clue or two.

Then I started my line inspections. I hadn't even finished my first bag inspection, when the packaging machine operator came up to me and asked in a surly voice if he was going to see my results right away or was he going to have to wait until his manager yelled at him about them. Dumbfounded, I said, "You don't get my reports?" After he confirmed that was the case, I asked him if he wanted me to make him a copy and bring it back to the line as soon as I finished with everyone. He agreed. During this time, a light went off in my head, as I reviewed the stories I knew about how my dad and maternal grandfather managed their employees. The packaging machine operators weren't getting enough feedback. And if they weren't getting enough feedback, then chances were, based on the first guy's comments, they weren't getting any positive feedback at all. So, in my "comment box" I mentioned specifically what was right about the bags I auditted.

I asked every machine operator if they wanted my reports directly from me. All of them said yes. I instituted what I called my positive feedback program. Sometimes, before I even started checking for flaws, I would write down what looked good on the bag. After a week of this, the machince operators started looking forward to my audits and asked for my opinion on some of their issues. During the third week, I came across a perfect bag. I asked the machine operator if I could display it in the lunchroom with his name attached to it. That bag was followed by others from other machine operators. Three months from the start of my audits and positive feedback, the manufacturing defects numbers had dropped 70%.

It wasn't the quantitative studies that found the issue. It was the qualitative investigation that did the job. The quantitative studies only backed it up. International Organization for Standardization has proceedures it dictates for those companies wishing to be ISO certified. I've actually taken classes on ISO certification a few years back and I can assure you that their quality standards take into account the qualitative aspects of processes too. I'm tempted to pull out my books and give examples, but I think I'll save that discussion for another post.

Subliminal stimuli processing

About a month ago, a friend of mine in the psychology profession, who is a fan of Derren Brown, had me watch this video:



It is an interesting experiment and a very well done one. I like the fact that they included two subjects who were internal controls. I think that it would be a very good idea to repeat the experiment for a larger population, with controls who hadn't even laid eyes on the CD they sent out. Another example of subliminal priming is Derren Brown influences two gentlemen who work in the US advertising industry. Even advertising professionals can be influenced. This video includes the explanation of how he did it. You might want to check out the UK version too.


Another interesting study is the Duke University Subliminal Ad Experiment:



Research=> Automatic Effects of Brand Exposure on Motivated Behavior: How Apple Makes You “Think Different”

This article first examines whether brand exposure elicits automatic behavioral effects as does exposure to social primes. Results support the translation of these effects: participants primed with Apple logos behave more creatively than IBM primed and controls; Disney-primed participants behave more honestly than E!-primed participants and controls. Second, this article investigates the hypothesis that exposure to goal-relevant brands (i.e., those that represent a positively valenced characteristic) elicits behavior that is goal directed in nature. Three experiments demonstrate that the primed behavior showed typical goal-directed qualities, including increased performance postdelay, decreased performance postprogress, and moderation by motivation.


What does this mean, besides the fact that humans can be easily manipulated? These experiments, tricks, and studies show that our minds process information on an unconscious level. In fact, it could be argued that some intuitive may come from this subliminal data processing. (Some intuition comes from the capacity to process things in a global manner.) This ability probably wasn't developed as a means to be influenced, though it probably helps with social interaction, but there is some evidence that it can improve our safety. The Gift of Fear written by security expert Gavin de Becker, suggests that the hunches and gut feelings we sometimes get come from picking up on certain cues that our conscious minds miss. It is a very easy and fascinating book to read, despite it's length. I highly recommend The Gift of Fear to anyone interested in personal safety or even just human behavior.

The way I see it, our minds have to regulate some of the processing of stimuli to the subliminal level because if it was all conscious, we'd get overwhelmed. And while this process can have some undesirable results, it does serve some very important functions.

Interested in the research on Happiness?

I'm sure that like me, many people find the research on happiness fascinating. I've done a post or two (three?) related to it in the past. I was about to do another one dealing with the newer research when I realized I was actually recovering territory already covered better by another blogger - Sandy Gauntam, writer of The Mouse Trap. The blog is practically dedicated to the subject of happiness at the moment. She does cover other topics there, though, too.

Here are a few of her posts on happiness research:
Am happy, will be selfish; Am sad, will be fair. Oh Really?!?
Happiness opposed to despair/ennui; sadness to anger/irritability
Am Happy, will talk more and deep; am Sad, will make small talk
Am happy, will seek novelty; am sad, will stick with familiar
Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why do you persist?

Do I agree with all her conclusions? Of course not. I rarely, if ever, competely agree with someone's conclusions. I'm genetically onery and have a family tradition of being slightly rebellious to uphold. However, she does an excellent job presenting the research and to be honest, I haven't really made my mind up on the subject yet.

And for your additional perusal, more articles on the subject from other sites:

Happy, Enthusiastic People Less Likely To Develop Heart Disease
Emotions Interfere in Theory of Mind
The Proof’s in the Positive Thinking

How we learn to see

Pawan Sinha talks about how our brains learn to see, based on his research with blind children and adults in India. Despite what some scientists had extrapolated from animal studies about sight, human brains can learn how to see even after many years of vision deprivation, even into adulthood.

"The one thing that the visual system needs in order to begin parsing the world is dynamic information."

This makes a world of sense when you consider that visual perception is dependent on eye movement. Vision and movement are linked. To quote Wikipedia: "Humans and other animals do not look at a scene in fixed steadiness; instead, the eyes move around, locating interesting parts of the scene and building up a mental 'map' corresponding to the scene. One reason for the saccadic movement of the human eye is that the central part of the retina—known as the fovea—plays a critical role in resolving objects. By moving the eye so that small parts of a scene can be sensed with greater resolution, body resources can be used more efficiently."

Try this. Focus on the red dot in the image below. After a while, the blue circle will start to fade. This illusion is based on how your eyes move.


[If you're like me, you will find it hard to stay focus on the dot once you notice the circle starting to look different. I actually got a headache fighting the impulse to compensate for the lack of microsaccade movement, through the use of gross eye movement.]

The Shift of Yin-Yang in View of Cultural Differences

"Whatever idea you may have, the opposite may also be true." - Derek Sivers

I love the idea of a doctor getting payed for keeping well versus getting paid for treating your illness. Of course, I know of hyprochondriacs who would be delighted to bankrupt a doctor like this. However, I suspect that part of the deal is that the patient is required to follow the doctor's orders, or find themselves in breach of contract. I do know of a case in Japan, where a woman was not told that she had bladder cancer because (at least at that time) Japanese doctors did not believe in disclosing such information to the patient. Instead, she was told she had gallstones. Her husband sued the doctor for malpractice, stating that had his wife known how serious the situation was, she would have gone through with the surgery. The doctor's defense was that had she followed his instructions, she would have lived longer. At the time, the court sided with the doctor.

In an individualistic culture, such apparently blind acceptance of another's judgment is considered by some to be nothing short of blasphemy. In a collectivist culture, it's considered a matter of respect and duty. And recent studies suggest that it might not be as blind as one might think. People in collectivist societies are more likely to read things that counter their personal beliefs than those in individualistic societies. A person in a collectivist society probably is more used to accepting ideas other than their own because they have to. They also have the security of a clearer social code than those in a society where individuality make the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors uncertain. In an individualistic society, the need to justify one's self to others is more constant.

The upshot of the study is that those in a collectivist societies are less likely to have confirmation baises. People in individualistic societies have a greater drive to "be right", which leads to a greater tendency to ignore information that might prove them wrong - which is the very definition of confirmation bias.

Ironically, I will have to admit that despite knowing all of this, I still have a hard time with the idea of accepting another's judgment in certain things. I am still very individualistic. However, even as I write this, I can think of areas of my life where I balance this out, of times when I will willingly defer to another's judgment without question. And I strongly suspect that most of us are this way. Individuality and collectivism is a continuum. Take individuality to an extreme and one runs the risk of being antisocial and/or egotistical. Take collectivism to an extreme and there is the possibility of becoming too dependent on and/or enmeshed with others. Look very close at people and you will find collectivism and individuality expressed in countless ways: like the rebel teen who wears the same clothes as their friends or the factory worker who has to alter his issued uniform.

My Capstone Files

The function of hemispheric asymmetry in regards to perceptions, cognition, and emotions.

Introduction
The intent of this capstone project is to study the hemispheric-specific traits of the brain to identify how these traits affect perception, cognition, and emotion. It is hypothesized that a counselor could theoretically increase rapport with their client by having a greater understanding of how the brain affects the mind. To determine whether this idea has any possible scientific basis, a literary review of professional books and journal articles dealing with brain hemispheres and mental functions was conducted. Research was focused on perception, cognition, emotion, concept of self and ways to identity hemispheric dominance. Personality was also an aspect originally considered, but none of the literature reviewed made any reference to it.

Main Paper
Tables

Conclusions
The hemispheres take on many hats as they work together, outside of the commonly repeated visuospatial and verbal ones. In regards to perception, the left hemisphere acts as a reporter, keeping an ear out for language patterns and detailed information. It looks for past occurrences and hints to future events. The right hemisphere acts as a sentry, constantly scanning the surroundings and looking for anomalies that may signal a threat to the body. Aware of the present moment, it notes distances and forms. When it comes to cognition, the left hemisphere is a bricklayer, breaking down information into smaller parts and arranging it into analytical series. Where gaps appear, the left will cover them with its own version of mental mortar. The right hemisphere acts as a project manager, on alert for mistakes and incongruities, while calculating the relationships of the elements involved. In memory, the right hemisphere cues the left hemisphere with generalities, so it can retrieve memories and link them in sequential order. Emotionally, the left hemisphere relies on the past to guide it, using the models and scripts it has created. While the right hemisphere focuses more on current physical and emotional sensations.

In regards to helping counselors relate to their clients better, this data won’t necessarily lead to a better therapeutic alliance. However, there are other ideas that counselors can take from this information to help their clients. Dr. Taylor’s recovery from her stroke shows how controlling one’s emotional environment can help their psychological well-being. Another lesson from her experience that has not been mentioned here yet, is the fact that when her left brain began to recover some of its scripts, she made a conscious effort not to let the negative ones reassert themselves. Her gestalt therapist probably deserves some credit for this, but it is obvious that the ability to say, “this is just my brain trying to do its thing,” did her a lot of good. When Dr. Taylor finds herself in a mental loop that is harshly critical, counter-productive, or out of control, she gives herself 90 seconds to let the emotional/physical response dissipate before re-evaluating the situation and acting. (Taylor, 2007) Being able to give some clients this self-knowledge might enable them to work with their mental processes, instead of fighting them in unproductive ways.

There is obviously a need for further study in this area. For instance, it is possible that learning styles may positively impact the therapeutic alliance, but the field needs more valid tests and research. The idea that false memories can be detected needs to be tracked longitudinally to check for the effects of memory fading. In the areas of depression, anxiety, and BDD, researchers are only scratching the surface. It would be very interesting to see if training techniques that help stroke victims would also help people with these disabilities.


References

Continuing the vein of "We see what we want to see"

Another good article on the subject => Desire influences visual perception

I love the intro: "WE tend to assume that we see our surroundings as they really are, and that our perception of reality is accurate. In fact, what we perceive is merely a neural representation of the world, the brain's best guess of its environment, based on a very limited amount of available information."

It really is a fascinating article. It would seem that our brains literally make the objects of our desire seem "within our reach" by making them appear closer than the actually are. Or in art phraseology, puts them more in the foreground of our visual field. On one hand, it sounds like a cool "carrot" approach on the brain's part. On the other hand, it also explains why people often give up on a goal when they really are on the verge of achieving it.

Mirror neurons

The greatest thing I think/feel that comes from mirror neuron research is the scientific proof of empathy as an actual human quality, based in neurological structure, versus the idea that it's just something we try to tell ourselves we can have. The second greatest thing of this research is that it also gives us a better idea why we have empathy and how we benefit from it.

This talk covers all of that AND gives us more to consider, based on the research of the phantom limb phenomenon.



In a way, humans benefit from the ability to have a "hive" mind, based on mirror neurons, and also individuality, based on sensory feedback. This dual modality is the basis of our ability to create complex and highly varied civilizations. With it, we can grasp organization and chaos. The trick is managing both.

Happy New Year!

Enjoy some "brain magic".

The Effects of Sound

Some of you might find it interesting that we can hear sound through our skin. I, personally, find it even freakier that we can hear it through our bones. As a brief break from my exploration of visual stimuli, I share with you this TED talk on sound.



Highlights of this talk

The four ways sound affects us:
1) physiologically
2) psychologically
3) cognitively
4) behaviorally


"You listen consciously, you can take control of the sound around you. It's good for your health. It's good for your productivity."

Examples of the effects of sound

1) A means to help us spot electric cars better as well as other things:
"when there was a visual cue, respondents were significantly less accurate than with no cue. With an audio cue, they were significantly more accurate. And when both audio and visual cues were given, the difference from the no-cue condition wasn't significant (although it was significantly different from both the other conditions). So the audio cue, especially when not paired with a visual cue, made respondents more accurate than a visual cue. If anything, the visual cue seemed to make it more difficult for respondents to identify which circle was disappearing."

2) Affecting moods, like anxiety and depression.

3) To mark psychological boundaries. I've seen this from person experience. I've lived in some diverse socio-economics areas during my life--from upper middle class to what some people would consider "a 'hood". One thing I've noticed in general, the more stressful a neighborhood is, the noisier it is. I've also noticed that the more homogenious the neighborhood, the quieter it is. Over the years, I've developed the theory that many people use sound/music to isolate themselves from others. It's corolary is that groups of people use noise to stake psychological territory.

The last place I lived in became the noisiest and ugliest place after it became more diverse and the ethnic groups felt the need to "mark their territory". The fact that it was a high crime area made things worse. The place I live now is ethnically diverse, but slightly higher socio-economically. Because of that, while we occasionally get someone being loud, it doesn't last for long.

When a few men moved into our apartment building from a lower social bracket last spring, I could tell that they felt uncomfortable, because they gave furitive looks and then would talk "homie/gang-banger" when someone came near them. It wasn't long before I was awoken from my very needed nap by the sounds of one of them screaming profanities at a girl on his cell phone outside, with all the charm of a cat in heat. Finally he hung up, but the next time he started, the neighbors below me started to blare Tejanos music to drown them out. They turned the music down when the next phone call stopped.

Since we live near a lake, we also had the sounds of nature to compete with, which thankfully would drown both parties out from time to time. Within about six weeks, the sound wars ended and nature won.

Are there echoes in space?

One search term that seems to send people to this blog is the question of whether or not there are echoes in space? I figure I might as well go ahead and answer it: It depends on what types of echoes you are talking about.

Normal sound echoes
NO. Normal sound travels through the air (or water) through compression waves. Without a compressable medium, such as a gas or fluid, these waves cannot exist. Therefore, no echoes. Now it is possible to hear sound through touch, otherwise known as conduction. I did an experiment with conductive sound in one of my gerontology classes as an undergrad. Freaky stuff. However, I don't remember any echoes while doing it and I'm really not sure there can be echoes that way, since echoes are sound waves that bounce back from another point. Still, in space, you probably wouldn't be hearing conductive sound through all the insulation keeping you from either boiling or freezing to death.

Radio and other electromagnetic wave echoes
YES. Electro magnetic waves can travel through space and they can bounce off of things and create distortions that are also considered echoes. However, without the proper receiver, you're not going to hear a thing.

Delayed Gratification

I'm really worn out at the moment, so I'm going to post a couple of short entries. For the curious, I write rough drafts for these ahead of time and the flesh them out later.

Recent research has shown that children who learn how to delay gratification are more successful in life. The following video talks about the Marshmallow Experiment originally done at Stanford University, its follow up research, and its replication in other countries.



The little girl the video clip ended with scares me a little. Not because of the fact she tried to trick the researchers by eating the inside of the marshmallow, but because she had such an intense reaction to wanting it. For a moment I was wondering what they had laced that marshmallow with, because she was acting like a heroin addict.

Anyway, back to the concept of delayed gratification. You know Aesop's fable about the Tortoise and the Hare. When you really think about it, it wasn't as much as the tortoise being slow and steady that gave him the race, as it was the Rabbit not delaying his gratifying nap that did.

On the flip side, youth who fell unsafe have trouble delaying gratification. I suspect that may be true for adults too, but the study focused on youths. If you thought you might die soon, there is less incentive to wait for a reward. In fact, there is less reason to play it safe, period, because it wouldn't matter in the long run.

Jerusalem and Stendhal Syndromes

Before we go any further, let me define the term syndrome as: A group of symptoms that collectively indicate or characterize a disease, psychological disorder, or other abnormal condition. Or in other words, a syndrome is a reoccurring set of symptoms that suggest a disorder or disease. Whenever I see the term syndrome used, I usually keep in mind that it is a condition defined by symptomology and not a definite cause or overwhelming reaction. As far as I am concerned, a syndrome is what we used to define something until we can study it and get a better idea of what's going on.

So the whole notion of adding "some experts don't believe this actually exist" when discussing a syndrome, strikes me as unnecessary. If there was firmer data on it, then the condition usually gets renamed something else and the syndrome part dropped, because it is no longer being defined as "a group of symptoms". At the same time, vehemently denying a syndrome exists is luricrous. The groups of symptoms exist independently of what people believe, what is actually being debated is whether or not this grouping defines something specific or not. But that cannot be scientifically determined until we test it. And to do that, we need to identify the set of symptoms to be researched, thus the designation of a syndrome.

Yeah, I know. We can argue that this is just my interpretation of the matter, but since I am only going to throw out some extra ideas about these syndromes (after describing them) in this post, my interpretation works for the mental exercise ahead. I'll start by explaining that sometimes these syndromes are triggered in people with mental illnesses. However, there have been reports of people who didn't have a mental illness, who subcomed to the syndromes and then quickly recovered. Unfortunately, many of those refuse to talk about it after their recovery.

So what exactly are these syndromes and why are they connected?

These two syndromes are forms of culture shocks. The Jerusalem Syndrome centers around a religious or spiritual element. I bring it up because it actually has more case studies than the Stendhal (or Florence) Syndrome, while having many similarities. The major difference is that people with Stendhal Syndrome rarely begin to think that they are religious personages from the past. However, in the less severe stages of both syndromes, the sufferers feel the following symptoms: anxiety, agitation, nervousness and tension, plus other unspecified reactions. Both syndromes usually occur when the sufferer is separated from friends and family. They feel as is something had opened up inside them. Both groups of sufferers (if the syndrome is not occurring with other psychopathy) feel an extreme reluctance to discuss the experience. To quote Bar-El, in regards to the Jerusalem Syndrome: "Upon recovery, patients can usually recall every detail of their aberrant behaviour. They are inevitably ashamed of most of their actions, and feel that they have behaved foolishly or childishly."

While Jerusalem Syndrome deals with religious cultural experiences, Stendahl deals with being overwhelmed by art. Listen to Digital Flotsam 59 – Stendhal Syndrome by P. W. Fenton, as he recounts his encounter with Stendhal Syndrome. Like those of Jerusalem Syndrome, Stendahl sufferers also feel this shame of being physically overwhelmed, only by art. Quoting Bar-El again:

The condition most closely resembling the Jerusalem syndrome is the Stendhal syndrome identified by Magherini (1992), which describes a particular acute psychotic reaction arising among art-loving tourists visiting Florence. The syndrome is named after the French writer Stendhal, who described feelings of déjà vu and disquiet after looking at works of art in Florence. Magherini in her book Sindrome di Stendhal (1992) presented the statistical, socio-demographical, clinical and travel-related variables of 106 tourists who were admitted to hospital in Florence between 1977 and 1986. She described cases in which a small detail in a famous painting or sculpture evoked an outburst of anxiety, reaching psychotic dimensions. According to her, such reactions are usually associated with a latent mental or psychiatric disturbance that manifests itself as a reaction to paintings of battles or other masterpieces and culminates in the full-blown Florence or Stendhal syndrome.

In more recent news, a Russian woman threw a terra-cotta mug at the Mona Lisa last August. Based on the news article, severe Stendahl sufferers can just as violent as their Jerusalem Syndrome counterparts. While most of them appear to have the transcendent overwhelming of the body, I can think of reasons why the woman may have had a violent reaction to the Mona Lisa.

First possibility: she have become frightened by the bodily sensations of Stendalh Syndrome and went into fight mode to take control of the situation. I've almost done something similar during a panic attack, but being aware of what was going on, I was able to remove myself from the situation before I did harm to anything.

Second possibility: she was shocked by the reality of the Mona Lisa versus her mental image of it, and reacted violently to this disruption of her world view, coupled with the Stendahl Syndrome (or maybe not). I have never seen the real Mona Lisa, but according my art history professor, most people are shocked to see it smaller than then they thought. Often when we see depictions of it in movies, cartoons, and comics, it is often made to look much bigger than its actual 77 cm × 53 cm (30 in × 21 in) size. This article on the attack actually gives you a better sense of its size. Another possible surprise for those who haven't taken art history, the Mona Lisa is painted on wood, not canvas. I'm not sure how obvious that part is, but it is something most people don't know.

Third possibility: she made some personal connection to the painting and acted on that. The Guardian article suggests that possibility itself. Apparently, she was denied French nationality, according to some sources. However, as the Guardian pointed out, she could have easily picked another, unprotected, painting to attack. For all we know, Mona Lisa may remind her of someone she felt rejected her in life.

Art and Thinking

When I read some of the theories about how art began with humanity, I can't help but compare them to how drawing develops in children. There is such a strong connection between drawing development and cognitive development, as well as manual development, in children that it is hard to believe that "art" began as some dream state as some might claim. I'm not saying that it doesn't create an altered mental state, because it does. I'm just saying that art's beginning is entwined with the process of thought and the communication thereof. The existence of pictographs before writing also strongly points to a hand and hand relationship between art and communication. There is research that shows a connection between language and cognitative ability:

Neural correlates of Early Stone Age toolmaking: technology, language and cognition in human evolution.
Does Language Shape What We Think?

So it really shouldn't be that hard of a leap to connect drawing to the cognition process. Recently, I watched an older TED talk which showed this connection in a interesting way. I'll let Gever Tulley explain...



His observation that the act of decoration is part of the creative problem solving process, a method for letting the mind wander freely for a while, presents an possible insight into how our minds work. Tulley takes things a step further, introducing how manual development helps us mentally in this next talk.



I like the idea of his tinkering school. I like it even better that he can back his views up with anthropology and other science.

Trying to understand world views

Devdutt Pattanaik, Chief Belief Officer of The Future Group, explains how the mythos of the East and West affect their business plans, art, and world view. I love how he illustrates the difference between "my world" and "the world", because no matter how much we want to believe that we are seeing "the world", we are still seeing it through "my world". This is why I have investigated perception in this blog--more specifically the perception of our basic senses and how they actually work, which is just as much subjective as it is objective. The truth is that our own physical natures, our mental biology and physiology are built around the idea of what is useful to our individual organism. As such, we, as living beings, can never truly escape the subjective side of our nature.

In fact, it has been my observation that the more we try to deny our subjectivity, the more likely it is that we will become a victim to it. It's like having a broken step in our staircase of thought and refusing to believe it is there. If you believe it's not there, then there is no reason not to step into the area . . . and then falling into the hole of your own biases. If you accept that the step is broken, then you can step over it, or step lightly on it; thus avoiding becoming stuck in your own subjectivity.

In psychology, the phenomenon of denying one part of one's nature and over-emphasizing its opposite is called suppression. It's great for short-term crisises (all coping mechanisms exist for a reason), but it's probably one of the greatest causes of neuroticism. Joseph Zinker in his book Creative Process in Gestalt Therapy, gives vivid examples on how "owning" one's suppressed characteristics can actually improve the desired one. As he states, "if I don't allow myself to be unkind, I can never be genuinely kind." (p 202) I know of several people who are so caught up with the notion of having to be nice, that they are actually more cruel because of their rigid beliefs in what nice should be. Some of them go even to the point of being domineering and controlling of others, chaining them to situations or solutions to the point that person being "helped" by these beliefs of "niceness" could conceivedly find death a less painful experience.

As hard as it is to believe, there are many case examples of people becoming more of what they desired, by accepting what they disdain in themselves. This doesn't mean becoming Mr Hyde. As Zinker points out, a healthy person may not always approve of their darkness, but acknowledging it allows them more freedom to be more effective with their lightness. John Bradshaw, in his book Healing the Shame that Binds You, likens suppression to hungry wolves at the door. It takes a lot of energy to starve and block out your dark side. When you let it in and feed it appropriately, several things happen. First, you usually find out that your dark side isn't as bad as you feared. Second, you have better control over your dark side. In fact, if you treat it more as a tool in your toolbox, than a demon to be banished, you can use it to your benefit. Instead of "giving in to the dark side" and letting it take over, you are truly taking the reigns and giving your darkness direction. You are the one in control of your desires. Also, you have more energy. By making your "wolves" work for you, you can get more done. Bradshaw has a wonderful exercise in his book, called "Making peace with all of your villagers". In it, not only do you identify the parts of yourself you are suppressing, but you find out how those parts, properly used, can help you in healthy and acceptable ways.

If you want another way to look at it, consider Viktor Frankl's theory on paradoxical expectations. My son has used it for years to control some of his more anxious behaviors. I don't know why it strikes such a chord with him, but it works better for him than me. I guess I'm not so convincing to myself.

So, tying this back to Pattanaik's talk: to understand people, it helps to understand what you are prizing in your world view and what they prize in their world view. I believe that each encounter between individuals has a cultural clash involved, which may or may not create misunderstanding. I was going to use a book I recently start reading to explore this, but as I began to analyze the differences in my world view and the author's, I discovered that what we really had was a congruency clash, not a cultural clash. Books I have culture clashes with do take longer to read, but I usually walked away with a better understanding of people, even if it doesn't transform my world view. Books I have congruency clashes with are another matter. I can more or less read anything non-fictional as long as the writer is congruent in his or her views. I may still disagree with them, but I can stick with their idea development. However, if they can't stick to their own idea development, I start to become agitated. If they can't stick to their own idea development AND start writing in a defensively persuasive way, I had to push the book away. As someone who is very skilled in defensive persuasion herself, I can spot when someone is writing out of a fear-based agenda, even if they are claiming to have the objectivity of a computer.

Anyway, I could try to force myself to continue reading the book out of an attempt to be open-minded, but these types of books tend to make me more narrow-minded because of their combativeness. Reading it out of principle would subvert that principle. So, I am going to put this book aside and see if I can find a book on the same subject written by someone who is less defensive.

Left Brain/Right Brain Components of Art

Cutting and pasting part of the capstone paper again. ;)

Perception in the left hemisphere.
If there are two words that describe how the left hemisphere perceives the world, those words are "details" and "boundaries". This might be explained by the fact that, while the ears and eyes send data to both hemispheres, the left brain hears the higher frequencies of sound and sees the shorter wavelengths of light. The higher frequencies of sounds helps the left hemisphere to distinguish vocalizations and language sounds, the sounds that the speech areas of the brain need to interpret. The shorter wavelengths of light helps to show lines, edges, and boundaries. (Taylor, 2006) Dr. Howard Sachs, a retired neurologist, decided to continue doing art after he suffered a stroke to his right hemisphere. The following image of his art shows some of the typical traits of artwork done by the left hemisphere: many details, but poor proportions, spatial relationships and overall coherence. (Springer & Deutsch, 1998)

Painting by Dr. Howard Sachs, MD. PhD. Used with permission.

In a very real sense, the left hemisphere cannot see the forest for the trees. While it focuses on details, it does not keep track of the relationships between those details. Relational data is often fuzzy, something that it is not well equipped to deal with. The left hemisphere tells us the boundaries of our environment and the boundaries of our own bodies. (Taylor, 2006). Ironically, it pays the most attention to the right side of the body, sometimes causing a degree of attention neglect to parts (and even the environment) on the left. (Springer & Deutsch, 1998)


Perception in the right hemisphere.
The two words that describe how the right hemisphere perceives the world are "novelty" and "global". The right brain hears the lower frequencies of sound and sees the longer wavelengths of light. The lower frequencies of sounds helps the right hemisphere to distinguish bodily and nature sounds, such as intestinal gurgling and thunder. The longer wavelengths of light blurs lines and edges, making areas and the relationships between them more obvious. (Taylor, 2006) An example of this is Edvard Munch’s painting, The Scream, which shows some of the typical traits of artwork done by the right hemisphere. If we ignore the deliberate distortion of the main subject, we can tell that the perspective and spatial relationships are accurate, with sparse details. (Springer & Deutsch, 1998)

The Scream by Edvard Munch (1893).

An interesting side-note: when Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor (2006) was recovering from her left hemisphere stroke, she didn’t give any consideration to colors until her mother pointed them out to her. This could be considered just a case study anomaly, except for the fact that anthropologists and linguists studying color have noted that the more primitive the culture, the less colors they will have names for among the general populace. Berlin and Kay's (as cited in Gates, 1999) evolution of linguistic development, in regards to color, states that there are seven stages of color recognition: from black and white to black, white, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange and grey. More recent studies show that Western civilization has around twelve colors in common usage, in addition to various colors that come and go as fashion dictates. In every culture, artisans will recognize and name more colors than the normal populace because the distinctions are useful to them. (Gage, 1999) It would appear that while the right hemisphere can see colors, it takes the left hemisphere to find a use for them and give them consideration.

Cooperation between the hemispheres.
Most of the tasks done by the brain require input from both hemispheres. The ears, eyes, and sense of touch send signals to both sides, though the signals are stronger for the hemisphere opposite of them. To help the brain adjust to possible injury, each hemisphere can do many of the same tasks, but in their own way. One of the problems that researchers face is the fact that hemispheres are so adept at covering for the other that it can make narrowing in on significant differences difficult. Both Dr. Taylor (2006) and Dr. Sachs (2008) were able to recover some of their damaged hemisphere’s functions through the training of the other hemisphere. Five years after Dr. Taylor’s stroke, she was able to do division and other simple mathematical problems. Two years after that, she was teaching Gross Anatomy again. As of 2006, she was a consulting neuroanatomist at the Midwest Proton Radiotherapy Institute, helping stroke survivors neurologically rehabilitate themselves. (Taylor, 2006) Dr. Sachs, in his 80s, is retired and living in an assisted living center. Even though it takes lots of concentration on his part, he still paints on occasion. He is fascinated by the lines and furrows of his fellow resident’s faces, though they will not sit for him. Here is another painting by Dr. Sachs in which the defects of his right hemisphere injury are not as apparent:


Painting by Dr. Howard Sachs. Used with permission.

When there isn’t an injury, there are many times symmetrical responses in the hemispheres while doing tasks, even if one side initiates the task first. It is through the process of "cross-cuing" that the hemispheres share information with each other. However, not every task gets originally sent to the hemisphere best suited to perform it, though the hemisphere always performs the task consistent with its own style. Some studies suggest that the mental task to be performed is usually more important than the nature of the stimulus when it comes to hemisphere selection. (Springer & Deutsch, 1998)

Resources
Gage, J. (1999). Color and meaning: art, science, and symbolism. Berkeley : University of California Press.
Sachs, H. (2008, August). Drawing from the left side of your brain. Howard's Weblog. Retrieved May 21, 2009, from http://hmsachs.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/drawing-from-the-left-side-of-your-brain/
Springer, S. P. & Deutsch, G. (1998). Left brain, right brain: perspectives from cognitive neuroscience. 5th ed. New York : W. H. Freeman and Company.
Taylor, J. B. (2006). My stroke of insight: a brain scientist’s personal journal. New York : Viking.

99% of Perception is Decision

Confession here--when I first saw the actual title of this video, a prejudice kicked in. Over the years, I have become very cynical about claims that computer programmers can build virtual versions of the human brain--supercomputer or otherwise. So, I almost didn't watch this video because of a pre-decided condition, one that is actually hypocritical considering my interest in cognition. I don't feel all too horrible about it. First off, it is a very common occurance in humans, even those who should know better. Second, and more importantly, my conscience pointed out my hypocrisy and nagged me until I made a commitment to watch this--thus maintaining my intellectual integrity on the matter.

I am so glad I watched this video. Because instead of seeing a theory built on narrowly conceived philosophies, I saw something that included perception as well as neuron activity. With no disrespect to Jeff Hawkins*, Henry Markham and his colleagues have a fuller theory of the brain, one that consists of holistic elements, as well as detailed ones. Their theory isn't stuck into a left brain world, but embraces both hemispheres of the brain--and the graphics used to show their points are not only extremely artistic, fascinating, beautiful and informative, but also examples of right brain/left brain cooperation. Their calculations are not only the mathematical, molecular side. These scientists actually have stepped backed and analyzed the big picture patterns of their results, realizing that they need to understand the "forest" in their work, as well as the "leaves".

I am tempted to say everyone should see this video; however, realistically, this video will be of more interest to you if you also have a fascination with cognition and perception. I will still maintain that those in the field of psychology and counseling, or consider themselves "scientific" should watch this video. You cannot understand a person or data, without understanding how your mind and others perceive it. You will be doing yourself a major diservice if you don't watch the following video:



Highlights for the less excited about brain science:

• 2 billion people are affected by mental illness in the world today.
  
• The theory they are using specifically - "The brain builds a version of the universe and projects this version of the universe, like a bubble, all around us."
  
• Finally gives a decent explanation for an optical illusion that was considered unexplained - why the moon looks so big at the horizon. It's not because of light bending. It's because we make it fit our other visual references.
  
• Explains how anesthetics work. They doen't put the brain to sleep, they create a static noise in the brain that keeps the neurons from talking to each other. I think this may explain why hypnosis can be used instead.
  
• "99% of what you see does not come in through the eyes. It is what you infer about that room." This is why people can look at the same thing and come to vastly differing conclusions. In counseling, it is why it is important to understand how the client perceives things and why they are the ones who actually have to be part of the creation of a healthier mentality. You can't just overlay your perceptions on other people.
  
• Shows that for the next hundred years, we can set aside the philosophical side of the above point and ask concrete questions about the brain's ability to do this, which can be tested scientifically.
  
• Mammals need a more complex brain because they had to deal with parenting, social interactions, and complex cognitive functions.
  
• Excellently done video clips that help explain brain development and structure.
  
• Shows how details and general overviews can work together, allowing a better understanding of our world.
  
• "The most important design secret of the brain is diversity."
  
• Shows in mathematical graphic how we can be different on the "leaf" level and still be alike on the "forest" level.
  
• Looking at the raw electical energy and the forms created by it, within the neocortical column.
  

*I still that Jeff Hawkins is correct with his theory of intelligence. He just doesn't expand it to perception.

Positive Psychology

Martin Seligman goes beyond the disease model in psychology and how to improve human lives, by examining the positive mental states.



Summarizing types of "happy lives": The pleasant life (full of pleasure) is inheritable and not very malleable. The engaged life (or good life) is full of flow, even if there isn't much emotion involved. The meaningful life is to work towards or for something larger than yourself.

The full life has all three, though the pleasant life gives the least amount of fulfillment of the three.

Where's the sweetness in your life?

Scrooge: "What right to you have to be happy? You're poor enough."
Fred: "What right do you have to be miserable? You're rich enough."
A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens


"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." - The Princess Bride


You would be very hard-pressed to find someone who hasn't had some grief, pain or other misery in their life, but you can probably easily find examples of people who can be happy in spite of their poor circumstances and those who are miserable in spite of their riches.

My daughter is friends with one of the sweetest, most childlike (without being childish) people I know. Everything she draws has an aura of cuteness. To the casual observer, the only clue to the darkness in her is the fact that she likes really heavy metal. Her innocence is so precious that her friends will tell anyone who tries to destroy it to back off in now uncertain terms. For the past few years, she has lived with a good family that has legal guardianship over her. It has been through conversations with her foster mother that I have some idea what this young woman's early life was like. With most people, I can say that while I haven't been exactly where they are, I have been a few houses down or a block or two away. In her case, imagine living with the craziest relative you know, while in an active war zone - and you just might have some idea what her childhood was like. While I have personal familiarity with some of the architecture of her life, most of the rest of it I only have the familiarity of a war correspondant in comparison.

If anything, her sweetness is one of the main things that kept the misery of her life from totally destroying her. It is no wonder that my daughter and her other friends fight so hard to keep that sweetness alive. Because truth be told, while she may be innocent in many ways, she has experienced more evil than many who parade their "emo-ness" can even fanthom. Her sweetness is not an act of avoidence - it is an act of bravery.

To often we shy away from joy and innocence because others try shame us away from under the guise of calling it "childish", "quaint", "silly", "hokey", and various other snobbish comments. It takes bravery to embrace sweetness and joy, while living in a culture that praises negativity and jadedness. It's no wonder that many people have no clue how to turn Life's lemons into lemonade; most of us don't recognize Life's sweeteners even when they are labelled for us. And a lot of people expect the lemonade to be made and given to them, completely unaware of how much better lemonade is when it is sweetened by ourselves to our own individual tastes. And sometimes Life doesn't give us lemons; sometimes it gives us cream of wheat, medicine, treackle, habenaro peppers, or crabapples.

And there are many types of sweeteners in Life. Nature uses more than just sucrose (refined sugar). She uses glucose (honey), lactose (milk), fructose (fruit), and others.

So today I am going to share some of the musical sweeteners that are currently just right for my life at the moment:

• "I get ten thousand hugs from ten thousand lightning bugs." - Firefly by Owl City
  
• Looking out my backdoor by Creedance Clearwater Revival
  
• In My Wildest Dreams - Moody Blues
  
• Never Gonna to Give You Up by Rick Astley. Yes, Rickrolling doesn't annoy me - I actually enjoy it. 'Tis like trying to injure a volcano with a flame thrower or stopping a hurricane with a water cannon! FEAR ME, PUNY MORTALS!
  
• Dragostea Din Tei by O-Zone
  
• Run, Runaway by Slade
  
• I Don't Feel Like Dancing by Scissor Sisters
  

Youtube playlist for your convience.

Now, what sweetness exists in your life? Please feel free to share, so others not only learn of other sources of sweetness, but take courage enough from your example to embrace the sweetness in their lives.

Cross-posted to my other blog.