I have a lot of stupid questions that I keep trying to ask.
I have a lot of stupid questions that I keep trying to ask.
Which is about as much as I can hope for.
I wrote, recently, about the aging my body has been doing behind my back (I don’t understand that sentence either). My little toe is something akin to broken, but, as I haven’t seen a doctor, I wouldn’t know the status. Point being, my foot hurts whenever I move. The fun thing about foot injuries is their knack for never healing on account of being used every other time you take a step. I haven’t been running around playing soccer or football (the same sport, depending on who’s reading this), I haven’t kicked any rocks or dropped any heavy objects on my already injured foot. But every time I take a step with my right leg, the pressure on my foot hurts the hurt part of my toe. (It’s the area around the cuboid/5th metatarsal.) I can’t imagine my foot is getting any better, no matter how immobile I make my little toe.
So now I’ve wrapped my foot up something fierce and am hopeful a few days of this will turn things around. But the world isn’t made for suddenly massive feet. I wonder where I fit in. Surely, I’m a lonely fool, and nothing more. I feel better physically, already, but I’m afraid my non-existent ego has taken another formidable blow. I have to recreate an ego just to allow it to be destroyed yet again. At least it was a philosophical decision last time. I don’t know what the general public thinks as I hobble around. Can’t I just be considered eccentric and quirky?
Got this off of google. Credit to whoever wants it. Also, I had no idea what any of these bones were until 3 minutes ago. Keeping my foot moisturized though. Looking good.
I’m looking through my notes app and wondering if any thought is worth writing down.
Here is one bullet point from the mess of ideas.
Cognitive constraints and emotional constraints. Want information in order to seem rational and want to feel good about that information. WESTON studies on political affiliation. Brain shuts down distress through faulty reasoning. Made the person feel good to use reasoning, even though it was faulty, to eliminate cognitive conflict.
Maybe you could tell that I was thinking in a specific direction. I’m very concerned with how emotions color reason. And how no one likes to consider him/herself irrational. We like passion, without a doubt, but not many people want to say, “I have no reason to think what I think. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to think the opposite of what I think. I’m completely irrational. Now celebrate me!”
But the problem that seems to come up all too frequently is deciding what we think well before we have any good reason to think whatever it is we think. This comes up in the form of confirmation bias a lot but it’s more subtle than that, as well. It isn’t as simple as ignoring conflicting information, it’s the tendency to reason in a way that doesn’t make sense. According to these studies (the details of which I’ve long forgotten and need to reread), people don’t care if their reasoning is solid or absurd. It looks like reasoning, it sounds like reasoning. It must be a duck.
So I have a stupid belief. I want to feel good about this belief. I want to feel like I have good reason to keep this belief. I want support. I go looking for information like a good little philosopher, and come back with all kinds of data and facts and opinions and ideas. I skim through however much I feel I need in order to support my belief. Panic! There is information that conflicts with my belief. My brain is in distress! Warning! Warning! Conflict! In order to shut off the alarm system, I need logic on my side. “I’m not crazy! Look, I have reasoning!” No matter what the information is, I can skew it to fit my belief. I’ve resolved the conflict without ever actually facing it. I used what resembles critical thinking to convince myself that the belief I already had is, and always was, correct.
The way I think is mostly concerned with conflict. I think those alarm systems should be listened to. What tends to happen is that the alarm is running in the background. Most of this happens unconsciously. We aren’t aware of the warnings and the issue is resolved on its own. (Meaning the brain does what it’s good at, resolves cognitive conflicts.) The only way to become part of the equation is to actively seek out conflicts and allow yourself to sit in them awhile. Marinate in the uncomfortable conflict. Sometimes we have to be alright with being uncomfortable in order to come to a correct conclusion. But it’s more than being alright. (Let me correct myself a moment after making a statement, like an idiot, and not edit this.) We have to find the uncomfortable thoughts in our heads. The ideas and beliefs we hold most dear have to be challenged the hardest. That’s such an uncomfortable thing to do that many people would rather avoid it. (We call it a crisis of faith, not a fun belief challenge time!)
Alright, there’s the first entry in my Expanding on Notes series.
I feel like I have a lot to say, but I’m not sure what exactly it is. Some large, meaningful idea is running away from me. Some breakthrough is being playfully, but obnoxiously, elusive. My mind is a child playing hide and seek when I would just like to lie down. My mind is running on full speed when the rest of me wants to shut off.
I think I may also be recovering from very mild heat exhaustion. (Just learned heatstroke is very serious and though I’ve heard it used often, it must have always been colloquial.) I’m worn out. My body aches and I have a slight headache. More of a consciousness dulling. Catching up to my thinking is suffering more than anything. The physical pain is limited.
Every thought I’m having is 5 seconds ahead of me. By the time it arrives at my fingertips, it has vanished. But it’s not as though my mind is racing. The thinking is normal. The translation has simply slowed.
Should Stay-at-Homes be paid somehow?
I’m reading a book about women. So far it’s primarily about how the different sexes are treated and the expectations placed on them right from the off. There’s some interesting stuff about how little boys and girls are treated by their parents, usually the parents don’t even realizing it’s happening. But one huge obvious difference is in the division of labor when one person stays home. This book mainly talks about how it’s more likely that women take up the childcare and household jobs (even when they’re professionals themselves). But I don’t want to get into all the complications that come into the picture when talking about men and women (like how they are raised and expectations, which are messy), so I’ll stick with staying at home vs working and how each are viewed.
A question that popped into my head while I was reading was how two people can be on equal grounds when one works and one stays at home to raise children. I think people generally say they value both jobs. I’m sure you’d say staying at home to raise children is a valid and worthwhile undertaking (maybe the most noble thing you can do). But there are clear inequalities as well, that are maybe unavoidable. Who decides which car to buy? Which house? Which appliances? Who makes most of the financial decisions? And who holds the power if a relationship starts to falter? Whatever the divorce laws are where you live, that’s not the most appealing route to take. Especially when the troubles are small. Immediate earning ability holds sway, I’d say, over the prospect of a long, drawn out divorce. Divorce damages both people, and involves the children. So it would seem that the working person has a much larger say and more power.
So just hypothetically, if you were in a relationship in which you worked and other person stayed home to take care of your child, would you try to work out a way for the person at home to feel like he/she is equal in earning? There’s a dollar amount attached to a professionals. You can count exactly what a full time job contributes to the family. Meanwhile, raising a child is much more abstract. So you spent 9 hours feeding, changing, cleaning, washing, cooking, etc? What does that mean, really? I spent the day at work and earned such and such amount of money to buy those things! It’s hard to make concrete sense out of diaper changes and bottle feedings. Is spending an hour trying to improve your child’s hand-eye coordination equal to an hour on the job? Is that a fair question? It’s equating work, that may or may not be a passion, to taking care of your child, which most people would claim they enjoy. Saying you deserve money (or something) for doing it implies that it’s a chore. You raise your children because you love her or him and want to help do what’s best. You don’t do it for money. Wanting some compensation can make someone look heartless.
It’s not hard to see how unfair that is though. No matter how much lip service you pay to raising the children, one person is still “bring home the bread” (I don’t eat bacon).
So you want to make it more equal and quantify the work that goes into raising a child and keeping a house in order. But then the trouble is, is the other person just giving you an allowance? That’s not ideal. You aren’t a child. Having a joint back account makes people feel more unified. “What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine.” But not really. If I make 100% of the money, then no matter the name on the back account, I’m making the money. I bought the groceries. I bought the house. Etc. And, primarily in arguments, those issues will come up. (“And who goes to work every day to pay for this house!?”) Maybe it would help if it was set up in a way that the paychecks were immediately and automatically split and deposited in separate accounts. The same thing might be true, that I’m making the money, but it might give a feeling of independence. That the stay-at-home is being paid for doing a job. Maybe you can write up a legitimate contract (like Kurt Vonnegut wrote for all the jobs he would do while his wife was pregnant). There is no real way to be paid as a stay-at-home unless it somehow comes from the employed person (because the government isn’t going to pay you). I don’t know if splitting the paycheck and depositing into separate accounts would work, but I do feel there should be some tangible way to acknowledge the effort and importance of staying at home to raise kids.
The book also mentions how having parents who stay-at-home vs work, gives a constant example to the children that maybe there are different roles for different sexes. And since, statistically, women are more likely to be stay at homes, then kids learn women stay at home and men work. And a little girl or boy has more limited options than he or she otherwise would. Food for thought.
Note: This was not thought out. I was reading, thought about this and basically stream of conscious’d it. I tried to clean it up a little but please excuse the terrible flow and disconnected logic/logical leaps.