Interactive education about Islam is a good thing

I recently read an article that complained about a school having children copy calligraphy during a lesson on the culture of Islam:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/15/students-practice-calligraphy-by-writing-there-is-no-god-but-allah.html

I realize that this may be disturbing to some people.  However, I personally see it as good education - play is the best way to learn.  No child is going to know what that text says - it's just calligraphy to them.  But, personally, I think it would be even better if they DID know what it said.  We're talking about educating people, not indoctrinating them.  Understanding what others believe is not a bad thing!!!

They let the kids draw calligraphy, try on hijab-like head coverings, and learn about the geography and culture.

The article states (in what comes across as outrage), "In other words, there were more than likely a few Christian teenagers in that room who had no idea they were writing, 'There is no god but Allah.'  But the school district doesn’t seem to think that’s a problem."

It is NOT a problem.  There is no Christian belief that prohibits learning about other cultures.  Nobody was asked to recite any belief sacred to Islam... but why should we live in a world where we're afraid to know or even memorize alternative beliefs?

I hope that my kids are lucky enough to have teachers who make learning interactive; who present a safe environment for considering what the world is like; who help my children to challenge their preconceived notions; who open their minds to complicated issues.  Personally, I WANT my children to really understand all the world.

Someone might make the argument that this is akin to showing children pornography as a means of helping them understand what pornographers are doing.  I guess I can see where you're coming from, except that you and I see either pornography or Islam very differently.  I tend to think it's the latter, and that Islam (the religion of 23% of the world) deserves more respect.

Communication and disagreeing

People have debated about what makes humans stand out among creatures on earth.  One ecologist friend of mine argued that it was the magnitude of our many talents.  Some people argue that it is our use of tools.  And, you guessed it, some argue that it is our ability to communicate.

Communication affects our every day lives.  We communicate with our bosses, our children, our parents, our friends, our lovers.  Some communication is verbal, other is non-verbal.

I've been really stressed lately about a lot of things (I'm on the up-slope of a hill in my life, right now).  So, today I got in an argument that rattled me a bit, and it got me thinking about communication.  The fight may as well have been about which fruit was the tastiest, or how big an elephant can grow on a particular diet...  and I don't know who raised their voice first, but there we were shouting at the top of our lungs, interrupting each other.  Ignoring each other at the very same time that we were giving each other our full attention.

What disturbed me most was that once the fight escalated, it was no longer about what was right.  Even though I'd like to say that I was fighting to prove a point that was correct... the reality is that by the time we had our voices raised, we had both made up our minds.  And we were both angry.

Now, I raise my voice in excitement pretty often.  I raise my voice because there's a lot of noise in a room, or I'm emotionally invested in the topic I'm discussing.  But I very rarely raise my voice out of anger, or as some weird way of proving my point (because whoever talks the loudest and most is right, right??)  I don't often do that, despite my willingness to debate most any topic.

So, I did a quick search online, looking for a good way to tone down an escalated argument, without simply withdrawing.  I worry that withdrawing might imply that I don't care about the argument, or the person I'm arguing with.  Obviously, there comes a point where withdrawing is on the table, but I would hate for it to be a means of disrespecting the other person or their opinion.

I found these suggestions:
1) Agree with them - instead of rapidly describing all the reasons they're wrong, state their case as reasonably as you're able.  This does a few really useful things.
First, it keeps you from ignoring them - it helps you truly listen.
Second, it communicates to them that you care about their opinion.  Of course you care about their opinion, or you wouldn't be wasting your time with them... but they should feel that.
Thirdly, if you're unable to find anything reasonable about their point of view, odds are you haven't truly considered it.  By taking the time to clarify their argument, you consider the truth behind it.

2) Don't escalate further - Arguments aren't really worth ending a friendship or ending a marriage.  If arguing is really going to end your friendship, you'd be better off mute around the person (and, indeed, one site pointed out that nobody gets angry about how you're listening to them too well).  But any two people who show respect for each other can have healthy disagreements.  The problems arise when you decide you WANT to fight.  You WANT to make them angry.  You WANT to win more than you want to converse or find truth.  But, 99.9% of the time, it just doesn't matter as much as your friendship!

3) Change your argument - The reality is that every discussion has underlying messages.  What is your underlying message?  Is the message, "I want you to respect me" or "I'm feeling worried about X, Y, or Z" or "I want to help you" or "I had a fun idea"?  Cause the points being argued about may not be the underlying issues.  Pause, take a breath, and state what is underneath the argument (in a non-accusatory fashion, of course).  Make your intentions known, not your argument.  And, if your intentions turn out to be dumb, fess up to yourself that you're being dumb.  "Ok... so basically I want to be seen as superior.  That's dumb, I'd better stop acting like this toward her."  or "My whole point here is that I'm an independent thinker.  If I really am, I don't need to force that point." or "My whole point is to hurt her feelings.  That's not a good goal."

Sometimes people give the best advice to kids:
http://kidshealth.org/teen/your_mind/families/tips_disagree.html

I generally consider myself a very open minded person.  I consider myself a good listener who focuses more on the person I'm listening to than what I plan on saying.  I consider myself rational and patient and friendly.  I believe I've helped people in my life by simply listening to them.

But I proved today that I'm not always that way.  I bet I'm not alone.

Feminism and Sexism: An introductory perspective for people who aren't mad about anything

Feminism

My old view

First off, let me say that, coming into this issue, I was a rather uninformed observer.  My perspective on feminism basically had a few core thoughts, with varying degrees of strength.  I hadn't considered the validity of these assumptions.  I just admit that I had them:
1) Feminism is an extreme perspective where women insist on their own dominance and superiority over men.
2) Otherwise healthy women (and only women) fall into this trap of calling themselves feminists because they feel like it makes them strong women.
3) Feminism is potentially dangerous to men because of the anti-male mentality of feminists.

A New View

After spending dozens of hours researching the issue online and in books and articles, I have changed my perspective.  A more accurate set of assumptions about feminism might look like this:
1) Feminism is a diverse set of views that are unified by the belief that ALL people (not just women) should be treated equally.
2) Every reasonable person, whether they are willing to admit it or not, is a feminist... because anyone who believes that people shouldn't be treated equally is kind of a jerk.
3) While some feminists, and some forms of feminism are anti-male, these views are not held by the majority of reasonable feminists.

Quickly, I'd like to qualify #2 from this second set, because it could potentially offend some people.  I see two main reasons for this:
A)  Someone might not wish to be associated with feminism, and they may feel that it is presumptuous of me to say what their view is.
B) Others may have philosophical arguments that, while respecting all people, demonstrate how equality is not real.

In response to A, my purpose in saying this isn't to define your views.  Rather, it is to define feminism.  Before doing a little deeper research, I viewed feminism as potentially quite extreme.  However, most modern feminists are not.  Historically, I think feminists tended to be necessarily more extreme, because to take a stance that specifically challenged the dominance of men WAS extreme, and required extreme people who were willing to be seen as a little crazy in the culture they lived in.  The current reality is not like that.  For the most part, modern feminists are philosophical and work with the established social system, despite its flaws.

In response to B, the philosophical arguments suggesting that equality is not real are equivocating.  Feminists are NOT saying that women are men (except really crazy feminists, who are rare).  Feminists are NOT saying that there is equality between people within our society.  Feminists are NOT saying that men and women face the same challenges, or have evolved the same way, or think the same way, or experience life the same way.  Actually, most feminists agree, even argue, that women are very different from men, that society treats people unequally, that men and women face unique challenges, that they have evolved to be very different entities, think very differently, and experience life very differently.  Some historic feminists have gone so far as to say that women interact with language so differently that even the definition of a sentence is based on how a man views language - which is a claim that is not subtle or trivial, and has many implications.

Feminists are not saying that people are equals in that sense.  The feminist idea is that everyone deserves the same degree of respect.  Respect is not simply liking someone.  It is letting them speak, it is hearing their view, it is allowing them to have the autonomy that you want for yourself.

Women are from Venus

For a moment, let's consider a race of alien beings that come to earth.  They seem friendly, so in our great kindness, we build them houses, teach them, and incorporate them into human society.  We are friendly and welcoming in every way we can be.  What are the moral implications of what we've done?  The unwritten assumption is that we don't know anything about them.  We have no idea what their natural habitat is.  We don't know how their brains work, or how successful our educational system will be with them.  We don't know anything about their culture, and impose our "superior" cultural view upon them.

This example is good for 2 reasons.  First, feminism asserts that women are different organisms from men, with different needs, different views, a different voice, different desires, etc.  Second, society has almost always been patriarchal, with men leading the governments, writing the literature, and teaching in schools.  If women really are quite different, then they are being raised in a society that is alien to them.

Now, in this example, if the aliens were feminist, they wouldn't suddenly grab their phasers and take over human society.  They would write books, do research, make speeches, make blogs, make youtube videos.  Because 1000 years down the line, even the aliens don't remember who they were.  The question is, "How can a person truly know herself if she has been raised by aliens?"  What are women really like?  We can't possibly know, because they've been raised by a masculine culture.  They have men's ideals, men's educational values, men's history, men's sexuality, etc.  This is not to disparage men or men's views at all.  It is simply recognizing that there is a potential alternative, and respecting that view.

Are feminists just angry people?

Imagine how angry a macho man might be if he were suddenly forced to wear pink bunny pajamas with a purple bow, and then told to watch the Bratz cartoon for the rest of his life.  He'd bust some faces!  Some women, when coming to the realization that they are trapped on a man's planet, get angry.  Their anger is extremely understandable.  The only problem is if they try to blame their anger on a particular person.  Cause, like I've mentioned in the past, human society is a giant machine with cogs constantly moving and no direct way of altering its function.

However, feminism is not angry.  Particular people may be angry, which I think, as an outsider, looks a little crazy.  But feminism is not a philosophy about violently revolting against men.  It is a philosophy about discovering what women (and all people) really are, and letting them blossom for themselves.

But feminism is somewhat more complex than this

Before I move on, I'll add that this is one view of feminism, which encompasses a great many views on feminism that I consider to be very reasonable.  There are also feminists that I flat out disagree with.  However, my purpose today is to demonstrate how feminism is a really reasonable thing, and I feel that by arguing about the feminist views I disagree with, I would be undermining my argument at this point.  I'm not saying all feminists are reasonable.  I'm saying that YOU can be a feminist without being a weirdy.

And lastly, before I move on, let me also point out that I'm not an expert on feminism.  Would a "true" feminist describe feminists differently?  Yes.  Would an expert on feminist theory describe it differently? Yes.  But part of the point of my blog post is to enable the non-expert, non-feminist to recognize the value of feminism.  Perhaps feminism's greatest weakness is its image to the uninformed.  So, in this case, my feeble voice on the issue is superior to the expert and the life-long feminist.

Sexism

Prejudice + Power, and why I disagree with the feminist definition

Let me emphasize that sexism goes both ways.  I will be referring to sexism by men against women, but I feel very strongly that sexism by women against men occurs and is equally wrong.  At least some feminists hold a specific definition of sexism that says sexism is a one way street.  This is because the group that has the power in society (i.e. men) are able to employ sexism in a powerful and damaging way, whereas those without power (i.e. women) cannot do the same.

At first glance, this notion seems ridiculous.  If someone is sexist, they're sexist, and it's wrong either way.  If a man doesn't get a job because he's a man, it is sexist, even if he were the only man to ever receive that sort of treatment.  The fundamental feminist ideology, the equality of all people, tears down this definition. A true feminist can't simply make excuses for excluding men from the definition of "all people".

However, they aren't specifically being anti-man when they say this.  Instead, they are trying to develop a vocabulary that is capable of addressing the many facets of the arguments.  Sexism, in the feminist sense, refers specifically to prejudice on the basis of gender by a group that has the power to do something about their prejudice.  In contrast, sexism against man is termed merely prejudice, because there is no power behind it.

I disagree with this idea.  I'm open minded, and willing to consider the implications of accepting or disagreeing with this idea.  But, men are not in charge by definition.  They have historically been in charge, and they are still in charge in many ways.  But that does not mean that women have no power over men, or that prejudice against men is impotent.  The assumption that men need no defense, need not be included in definitions that apply to everyone else, and need not have equal consideration... to me, it comes across very oddly.  It seems like a special effort by women who fear that their own tools to escape from prejudice will be used against them.

I am empathetic to this feeling, and I feel that they deserve protection from such a short-circuit.  But I also feel that feminism is not simply about the relationship between men and women as it stood 1000 or 100 years ago, or as it stands today.  Feminism has the capacity to address the societal relationships between all peoples forever more.  Furthermore, women do have power, even if the division of power is not equal.  And some men are powerless.  As society progresses, it becomes more and more dangerous to simply assume that men are in power.

After all, even if "men" are in power, a man need not be.  Consider the case of a man who is good and kind to all he meets, but he is subjected to gender-based prejudice that results in great loss.  The loss isn't lessened by the fact that he's a man, or that some men have power, or that some men abuse power to hurt women, or that there is more male literature, or that there are generations of authority behind sexism against women.  His experience is equivalent to that of a woman who faces the same experience.  Some feminists would disagree with this, because of what I've written in the prior sentence.  Prejudice and power have harmed him, and I'd darn well call that sexist.

As with everything, I'm still learning about this.  I'm open minded, and willing to consider the implications of what I'm saying.  I'm no expert.  But I hope you will equally consider my thoughts.  I really doubt I'm the first to argue this case against the feminist definition of sexism.

Sexism as an impersonal cultural issue

I will begin with a statement that I think would be somewhat shocking to someone who knows how I feel about sexism:  Sexism is not something to feel guilty about.  Now, why do I say that?

In part, it is because sexism is not the same as sexist acts.  Sexism is a cultural view, not necessarily a personal one.  Sexist acts, on the other hand, are personally performed.  A boss might not hire someone because she is a woman - that's not only sexism.  It is a sexist act.  It also happens to be based on an inaccurate cultural idea that women are not as capable as men.  Did the boss create that idea?  No, not necessarily.  The boss simply lives in the culture that promotes the idea.  As long as the boss doesn't act on those cultural impressions, then the boss is helping to solve the problem rather than propagate it.  Thus, the boss would neither be responsible for the thought, nor be supporting its advancement.

Likewise, sexism is not the same as sexuality.  A man may find a woman very attractive (and you will find upon further inspection that many do).  This is not wrong or bad.  This may be an obvious statement, but I think that sometimes people smear the good and the bad, and it can be very confusing.  A boy or man should not feel guilty about finding a woman attractive -- where would the human race be if this weren't the case?

However, our actions must be more refined than our experience.  A man who seeks to act on his attraction for a woman should do so in a way that respects her.  In some cases, that simply means not acting on the attraction at all, ever, as in the case of a professional relationship.  Consider also the case when he has authority over her.  It is not sexist to feel this attraction.  It actually isn't necessarily sexist per se to act on it.  But it can be inappropriate, and it can be sexual harassment.  It would only be sexist to feel that a man should be able to act on their sexual feelings in an inappropriate situation where a woman could not.

A person should not feel guilty about what our culture is, because you and I didn't make it.  But, we should feel compelled to fight against the negative, and fight for the positive.  It would be more reasonable, though not completely accurate, to say that we should feel guilty about the culture that exists after we're dead.  What will we help to create?

Can sexism be personally constructed and held on to?  Yeah.  So stop that.

Results and being open minded

I don't know if all feminists want everyone to start thinking like feminists.  I occasionally get the sense that some feminists see feminism as a club.  A girls club, making up for thousands of years of boys clubs.  Similarly, I get the sense that some feminists don't care how empowering women affects men.  If it turns out that men become slaves in a few generations, it wouldn't bother them at all.  I think that's not at the core of feminism, and the anti-male attitudes make it really hard for many people, especially men, to take on feminist ideas.

But, like I said, I think there are some feminists who want feminism to remain that way.  They want it to be unappealing to men; they want it to be a club for women.  Why?  Leaving men out of the feminist movement is leaving out half of your potential supporters!  By adopting anti-male attitudes, you are leaving behind the universal truths of feminism, the potentially world changing ideas, in favor of a girls club.  To be anti-male is not only sexist (SEXIST), it is anti-feminist.

I want to learn more.  I want to empower women (as a group).  I want to reduce sexism.  I want my wife, my sister, my sons' future wives, and any of my female descendants to live in a world where they are at home, truly happy, and fully themselves.  I view this issue as larger than myself and my own self-interest.  I am open minded.  Shouldn't that be appreciated by feminists? 

But, being open minded is not enough to feminists, in general, because they are a results oriented bunch.  It isn't enough to say you tried, and it isn't enough to apologize for doing something sexist, even if it's an accident.  They want to see sexism eradicated, not just have people feel badly about it.

To which, my apologetic reply is: We need to start where we are.  Give men a break as we seek to be part of the movement to overcome the social issues that we did not create.  Nobody can change 1000 years of history, or provide an additional 1000 years of history without the passage of time.

Is sexism in video games the core of the problem?

What's the issue, here?

Women are sexy. They are smart. They are daring. They are at times heroic and at times self-sacrificing. Women are exciting and interesting just as they are. If the gaming and movie industry ever figured that out, they'd get rich... er. (I suppose they do get it right, at times.)

The portrayal of women in video games ranges from realistic to mindbogglingly stereotypically sexist. The latter has gotten the attention of feminists, and has recently become somewhat of a hot topic. It is a heated debate that has grown to involve name calling, threats, violence, scandal, political movements, and so much more. On the one side are the people concerned for the injustice and sexism toward women. The opposition includes a group (Gamergate) focused on improving the standards of journalism in the gaming industry - it may not sound connected, but it really is.  The feminist side says that the interest in journalism is a front to hide the extreme sexism of the group.  This may be true of most of the members of the group.  I have no idea, and don't affiliate myself with either side.

Just like the topic of evolution and religion, some people are so tightly bound to their side, with so many good reasons, that saying anything at all against or for either side is seen as a declaration of fealty. I value women. I value good games. I value humanity and humanities. I believe we should honor womanhood, and that inasmuch as games fail to do that, there is room for important improvement.

I also value role models, and changes that are focused and effective.

I watched this video recently:

Real change requires better arguments

I don't know much about Anita Sarkeesian (I keep seeing her pop up), but I feel like she's being too casual about her argument. Is she arguing against violence? Or is she arguing against violence against women? I suppose she could be fighting both, but that's an awfully large fight. A big battle needs to be fought with big guns.

She needs to provide data that supports her claim - after all, she's taking on a major issue in a major industry. I love, and feel very close to my mom, my wife, my sister, and I hope to perhaps have a daughter some day. As such, I'm highly interested in women being respected. But this lady is careless, and as such can't do anything more than get people who already agree with her to make noise. I suppose she has also really bothered some people. Is that success?

The video brings up specific instances of violence toward women in video games. Female prostitutes being run over by cars? I see 2 problems with this point.

A) Prostitution is a real "profession" which is even legal in some states. I don't like it, but it's there, and the games didn't make it. Can we really give a game demerits for bringing attention to this actual phenomenon? Is media better if it produces falsely violent scenarios? They're presenting a story that represents a real part of life. An unsettling part of life that people prefer to ignore. Can we stop ignoring it, please? Can we do something about it?

B) You can run over anybody in the game. Should the game shut down every time you hit someone because, "Hey, that action isn't allowed!" The video makes a big deal about it, "You can kill the prostitute (Image of someone shooting her with a gun), or even run her over!" How is running her over worse than shooting her with a gun, exactly? But more importantly, running her over is a logical possibility given the reality of the game. Anything and anyone can be run over. The fact that you CAN run over a prostitute is... hardly surprising. Why you would want to is another issue entirely.

I'm in favor of increased respect for human life in the media. Ergo, I'm in favor of increased respect for women in the media. Why do the faces of such a movement have to represent themselves so poorly? Why do their arguments have to be so based in pathos? I believe the term for an argument so entrenched in pathos would literally be "a pathetic argument".

The real problem

I am saddened to see the careless hate that's being thrown at women who feel like Anita Sarkeesian. Messages of murder, rape, or other violent acts are truly saddening - even terrifying. She doesn't deserve such treatment. Furthermore, the morons who think it's clever to be so verbally violent, or heaven forbid, who actually feel that way... they just add fuel to her fire. They're the problem.

While making a point about violence toward women in video games, the video shows an image of the beginning of the game Dishonored where the queen is murdered. I can't help but slap my forehead. The queen is a respectable female leader, and she's killed as part of a plot to overthrow the government. Would it have been better if it had been a man? Those kinds of points are just so stupid. Argue that the protagonist should've been female, or argue about ways that women are misrepresented (there's quite a bit of misrepresentation of women). But there's plenty of violence to go around. In general, women are not singled out. If anything, there are far more frequent, and far more graphic deaths of men in games. Focusing on these weak points just decreases their credibility. (Could we please get a face on this problem that is credible?)

A much more serious phenomenon is brought up in the video. The reality is far worse than the portrayal in video games. It is how women are actually treated that is just appalling. Sexist, sexual, violent, or simply rude comments to female gamers just make the world a worse place. The gaming community demonstrates that some people (and it doesn't take long playing online to find such a person) simply haven't been effectively taught values of compassion, integrity, mutual respect, or kindness to strangers. If these things sound old fashioned, I'd argue that they are the important values of the future. Gone are the days where you only see strangers when you venture outside your front door. We now have strangers visiting our homes via our computers on a regular basis. General values for mutually respectful behavior are more important now than ever before. And as the world becomes more connected, these values will only become increasingly important.

Why is Anita Sarkeesian attacking sexism in the video game industry instead of taking on this much more pressing issue?  Perhaps it's just easier.  But real girls are actually mistreated online every day.  The violent backlash against Anita Sarkeesian is an expansion of that behavior.  It isn't because they're girls - it's not their fault. It's because their assailants are uneducated in valuing human life.

When are we going to start addressing the heart of this issue?

Update#1: After visiting her website, feministfrequency.com, I have to admit that the video I've linked above does a poor job of representing her stance or methods.  For example, in one video, she discusses how refreshing it is to see mutual respect between the lead female protagonist and her male sidekicks; my own opinion mirrors her comments in that video.  Also on the website, she does present data regarding some issues.  In the interest of forming your own intelligent opinion, I recommend visiting her website, and seeing what Anita Sarkeesian has made.  Does she do the issue justice?  I'm still forming my opinion.

Update#2: After watching hours of videos, reading pages and pages of ideas and even turning to some textbooks and primary literature to clarify issues for myself, I feel that the ABC video does a terrible, terrible job representing Anita Sarkeesian.  They represent her as an object/target/victim of aggressive sexism.  She is, rather, the perpetrator/subject/activist of exposing sexist cultural norms - and she doesn't hate the games that she's talking about; if anything she loves them.  In return, as a response, she has been hated extremely violently and aggressively.  Furthermore, I believe that her analysis of sexism in video games is based firmly in the accepted philosophical underpinnings of moderate feminism, and does not exaggerate the problem, despite focusing exclusively on the problem of sexism in video games.  In contrast, the responses to Anita Sarkeesian have been extreme, illogical, and self-righteous.  I'm inclined to say that she's made a feminist out of me - it may sound crazy, as a week ago I'd never have said I'm a feminist, but Anita Sarkeesian is really grounded and logical, contrary to what I understood previously.

Baymax's most impressive superhero powers

When my kids watch the movie "Big Hero 6" I'm sure that the coolest things Baymax does include flying, shooting his fist like a rocket, and doing karate.  However, I'm impressed by the plethora of healthcare functions he performs.  Not only does he diagnose and treat healthcare problems, but he does so without external aid.

When spraying Hiro's arm with bacitracin, he does so using his finger.  This suggests that he either has a container of bacitracin within him, or a means of chemically producing any substance.  Either way, this is impressive.  As bacitracin is not the only antibiotic that might be used, if he has a container of it, he probably has a container of every known drug.  If he internally produces the chemical, then the technology within him is unprecedented.  A mobile,  human(-ish) sized machine that can create any chemical?  Bank.

Equally impressive is his scanning function, which, at one point in the movie, identifies Hiro's peanut allergy.  It's already impressive enough that it's able to determine a person's blood levels of neurotransmitters and their blood type.  To do so would require identifying molecules inside the person, which is unfathomably impressive.  But to identify a peanut allergy is a billion times more impressive.  He would have to run peanut allergy simulations on every immunological binding protein in the body, of which there are innumerable.  Based on the scanned structure of every molecule in his body, Baymax would have to recognize the potential for peanut molecules to bind and activate the immune system.  With neurotransmitters, you could estimate a quantity based on an approximate density in a particular area or something.  But to recognize a peanut allergy would require a lot more precision, or you might miss it.  And it could be life-threatening to diagnose someone as having no allergy when they actually have one.

So, I guess science fiction is cool to kids and grown-ups alike.  No news there. :)

Music and Video Games

Yeah, yeah, video game music is a lot of fun.  I could hum the megaman 2 themesong for hours on end as much as the next guy.  Or the kefka themesong.  Or try to make clicky-tongue-noises to the final fantasy 7 urgent timed mission music (ticky-tocky-ticky-tocky. DUN. DUN!  DUN. DUN!)

But there's a place where music from video games overlaps with music in the real world.  It is a zone where the real becomes magical, and the imaginary solidifies.  So, I'm sharing some of these things that are truly wonderful.

First, the title song for the game Civilization 4.  The song is called Baba Yetu.  It is the Lord's Prayer in Swahili, and the song is absolutely glorious.  Below is a rendition by Peter Hollens and Malukah, who do lots of cool vocal stuff.

The second song I'd like to share is called "The Queen of Blades".  It was written and performed for a competition in 2010 at Blizzcon.  The song is based on the lore from the video game Starcraft, and it is just very well done.

The third song is based on the lore from the game the Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.  It was written and performed by the fan Malukah (who also performed in the first video above).  I can't get enough of this stuff!

There are obviously other musical performances based on videogames that are high quality, but I thought I'd share these, which are among my favorite.

Barbaric Pain

For a few moments, consider some things.

First, we are able to create 3D CG movies of immense detail and outstanding quality. For example, Disney employed exciting new lighting technology in the movie Big Hero 6.

Second, we're able to wirelessly transmit all of that information to a 3D television.  That's right.  The extreme detail of the movie can be wirelessly sent via specialized transmitters.

Third... 3D television!!!  It's amazing enough that we have been able to display anything we can imagine on a flat surface.  Now we can trick our brains by using stereoscopic rendering and polarized glasses.  Not to mention the amazing glasses-free technologies on the horizon.

Now, consider that we have sophisticated maps of neural pathways, and unobtrusive techniques for scanning an individual's brain.  Consider also that the primary distance-covering method of neurotransmission is simply electrical.

Consider further that pain is a matter of hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

Then, in light of aaaaaaall that, considering aaaaall that stuff...  Think about our primary method of treating pain.  We give people chemicals that have really poor specificity, and seriously negative side effects!

I'm blown away thinking about all that.  It isn't like there's no motivation to find the best pain treatment.  Someone could get seriously rich off of this, and powerful companies have massive work-forces dedicated to discovering treatments for pain.  Not only are the workers real people who probably are highly interested in solving the pain problem for humanity, but also the companies would benefit immensely by solving this problem.

So, why can't we wirelessly transmit pain relief to people's neural cortexes?

Research into treating phantom limb pain wirelessly is promising.  How far off is unobtrusive pain relief?

You've got to admit that this is a compelling issue.  Thoughts?

Cool things you can do with google's search engine (besides searching)

Google has a variety of features that are quite useful.  Here are a couple:

1) 10 minute timer - or any number of minutes.  If you type X minute timer into google, it starts a timer for you.  If you leave the tab open, then when the timer runs out, it will beep incessantly.  Since our microwave timer beeps quietly 2-3 times, it's really useful to have this annoying timer.

2) what's my ip address - Typing this into google's search box will not only pull up sites about your ip address, but will also tell you directly.  At the top of the search, your external ip address is printed in big bold text.

3) hunger games mockingjay release date - or any movie.  Typing a movie followed by "release date" in google's search box will tell you the release date.  Similar to the ip address, it'll print the release date in big bold text at the top of the list of search results.

4) hunger games mockingjay rating - or any movie.  As before, typing a movie title followed by "rating" will display it's rating.  The MPAA rating appears in big bold text at the top of the search results.

5) Date of the moon landing - Some historic events will result in their date being printed at the top of the search results.  Other historic events will have a small description, including the date.  For example, typing "date of the end of world war 2" pops up a brief description, including the date.

6) US minimum wage - Typing this in google's search box pulls up the current US minimum wage (currently 7.25).  Replace "US" with a particular state and you'll see that state's minimum wage (California - 9.00, Texas, 7.25)

7) income tax rate in Colorado 2014 - Similar to the minimum wage thing, you can get a description of income tax rate in a particular state.  The response on top is an excerpt, rather than the income tax rate, but the excerpt includes the rate.

I'm sure there are tons of other things you can search for like this.  Google will simply provide the information, rather than making you wade through the pages of search results to find it.

Lastly, and most importantly, everyone should experience the image search for "atari breakout".  Make sure you do an image search of exactly that phrase, and it will surprise you.  Do it! :D

Modding Skyrim: hours of work and no play.

Lately, I have been rather uninterested in playing video games, which is unlike me.  I've looked at lists and lists of hundreds of games and nothing catches my eye.  Although the upcoming Star Citizen looks amazing, and promises so much amazing gameplay, I just can't buy it.  For one, I've been burned by early access already, and I've decided not to  go in for an early access game without a darn good reason.  Second, I almost never buy a videogame at full price, and I hope to get a bargain on Star Citizen... some day...

Which eventually led me back to the modern classic, The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim.

A Brief History of The Elder Scrolls (TES).

Arena

In 1994, Bethesda, a company that worked primarily on sports games, released "The Elder Scrolls: Arena" for PC.  There may have been other open world games (Betrayal at Krondor), but I think it's fair to say that open world games are much more common today than they were back than.  Not to mention that PC gaming is somewhat more mainstream.  I've gotten it working on a DOS emulator, and it definitely felt like the ancestor of the modern elder scrolls games, albeit a lot...  older feeling.

Daggerfall

I don't know about the popularity of Arena, but I do know that TES 2: Daggerfall was at least talked about when it came out.  Daggerfall is much harder to get working on modern systems, and while I did once get a version of this game running, it was sufficiently difficult to keep running that I didn't play the game much.  But, it was at least popular among it's fan base... for what that's worth.

Morrowind

Now, TES 3: Morrowind was utterly popular.  It is a legend among open world games, and many modders continue to try to recreate this game in the modern game engines of its successors.  Open world RPGers often compare modern games to Morrowind.  It is held on an untouchable pedestal by some, and at least considered a good game by most gamers.  My confession: I only ever played this game for about 15 minutes.

Oblivion

TES 4: Oblivion was the first TES game that I played, and it blew my mind.  At the time, truly open world gaming was not really very common.  A few games mimicked TES, but Oblivion was definitely the first open world experience that grasped me.  The game had a massive scale, which continues to be hard to compete with.  The world was just enormous, detailed, and rich with subplots.  Just look at this aerial view of the imperial capital (below).  There are book stores, magic shops, general merchants, weapons and armor merchants, a thieves guild, a port and harbor, the castle, housing, a prison, a gladiatorial arena, military executive buildings, the armory, religious structures... and a lot of other places and people, with many personal vendettas, love stories, underground activities, or whatever other number of quests, personalities and stories you'll find. Now, think about how in the distance, beyond those mountains, you could find dozens of other cities. 

I remember having to turn off the grass to be able to play the game, since the grass textures overloaded my computer.  In fact, it wasn't until I got a better computer that I was able to play this game on anything with graphics settings above unbearably mimimalistic.  Below is an image that illustrates just how minimalistic the game can look.  Even those shrubs on the bottom left and right spruce it up a bit.  But the game had a lot of detail, when settings were up high enough.

Now, for TES 5: Skyrim.

This game is an amazing successor to the TES series, but it was a very unstable video game.  You'l be playing, and then out of the blue, it crashes.  Not to mention, it takes like 10 minutes to start the game and load your last save, which makes a crash all that more frustrating.  In fact, the terms CTD (crash to desktop) and microstutter (where the game renders somewhat like a slideshow for a second or two), while associated with poor graphics/game performance in general, are more commonly associated with this game than any other.  What a disappointment!

And yet, the game is so immersive and vast, that a committed gamer may overlook these awful aspects to participate in the adventures of Skyrim.  In fact, it is quite possibly the most highly modded game ever, with almost 40,000 files boasted at Nexus Mods, a major modding site.  Mods include everything from improved graphical quality to diverse alterations of gameplay.

Graphics mods make the game look uber good.

This picture shows a close-up of a texture from the ground, demonstrating the quality improvements available.

This image demonstrates a mod that makes the meshes of various objects look much better... for example, chains are no longer flat, and apples aren't 12 sided objects.

And this picture is just to demonstrate how very beautiful the game can look.

And gameplay mods add really exciting features and interesting challenges, as well as improving various aspects of the game, such as the level system and enemy AI.  Some mods I've really enjoyed are:

Frostfall - creates an "exposure" system, where you need to keep your character warm while in cold weather by wearing warm clothing, building a fire, and/or seek shelter in storms.

iNeed - creates a hunger, thirst, and fatigue system that requires meeting your characters needs in order to function at peak performance.

Hunterborn - Takes away the original system where animals have coins and weird things, and replaces it with a field dressing, skinning, and carving/harvesting system.

So... the problem with all this is that the game isn't stable, as I said before.  The more mods installed, the less stable the game becomes.  But as one begins modding Skyrim, it becomes difficult to decide where to stop modding.  For many modders, it seriously gets to the point where they are trying to get the game to start at all.

There is plenty of software designed to aid modders in setting up mods in the most functional possible way.  Nexus Mod Manager, Mod Organizer, BOSS, Load Order Optimization Tool, Skyrim Performance Monitor, TES5Edit, Wrye Bash, and many, many others.  I've used all of the above, and many others.

To make a long story short... at this point... I've gotten the game to the point that it starts with about 300 mods installed.  The experience is awesome... but it microstutters and crashes to a frustrating extent.  I guess it doesn't matter too much, since I've not been in the mood to play games anyhow.  But it is simultaneously very exciting and frustrating!

Squares and Oats: A long kept secret.

I'm going to tell you a secret...

The truth is...

...that I am a semi-famous guy in the video gaming world.  I know, I know, I'm a nerd.  But I'm a semi-legendary nerd.

My online handle is SquarelyCircle.  I've used this nickname in most online games, but the name is most famous for publishing the once popular Starcraft II mod called "Desert Strike version Square".  In its prime, the mod commanded 60,000 hours of gameplay each day, and continued to see such gameplay statistics for almost a year after I released the mod.  To this day, the most popular versions of the Desert Strike mod are based on my original version for Starcraft II and give credit to SquarelyCircle.  Of note, and to give credit where credit is due, my version was highly based on a previous version of the "Desert Strike" mod for the original Starcraft game by Queen Gambit.

The degree of fame that SquarelyCircle has is pretty impressive.  When using the handle in forums or videogames, I frequently get comments like this one:
"You wouldn't happen to be THE SquarelyCircle from the SC2 WoL mod Desert Strike that has a bunch of popular ripoffs without credit to you, would you? (Awesome game btw, I put quite a few hours into before I got bored of winning :P)"
This particular comment comes from the Starbound forums, but I've been approached dozens of times.  Being called "THE SquarelyCircle" is a fun experience.

This youtube video demonstrates some of the features of my version of Desert Strike.

Another interesting thing about SquarelyCircle is that there has been a professionally written song about him.  After withdrawing from medical school, I felt lost and somewhat depressed.  I spent some time playing DoTA 2, and made many interesting friends.  One of them, whose handle was ZeroCrossing, worked in music composition, and he wrote a song to cheer me up.  I love it.  Listen to the song, it's fun!

Anyway, there's the truth.  Be gentle with my nerd side...