I wrote this awesome post for my blogger blog and now it's erroring and won't let me post it-- so I'm putting it here.


Sometimes I read these articles and I wonder why the research actually had to be done. This one in particular is about Self-Esteem, and how high Self-esteem doesn't always mean that you're psychologically in a healthy place. This right here is my favorite part of the article-- because it sums up the results pretty succinctly, and in such a way that I just stared at it for a moment with the thought "we didn't already know this?"

“These findings support the view that heightened defensiveness reflects insecurity, fragility and less-than-optimal functioning rather than a healthy psychological outlook,” said Kernis. “We aren’t suggesting there’s something wrong with people when they want to feel good about themselves. What we are saying is that when feeling good about themselves becomes a prime directive, for these people excessive defensiveness and self-promotion are likely to follow, the self-esteem is likely to be fragile rather than secure and any psychological benefits will be very limited.”

It just seems common sense to me. Secure people don't have any reason to lash out or get defensive. They can accept that other people have different opinions and not be threatened by those differences. I think the real issue of this article is the semantics between "Secure" and "Insecure" people, vs. "high self-esteem" and "low self-esteem." They're not the same thing. That's what this study proves-- semantics. It doesn't tell us anything we don't already know, it just tells us how to categorize it, linguistically.

But that in itself is kind of fascinating too-- here we are using science to define words that we already use. To redefine words, maybe. To find the right word to fit the scenario they've observed. How much time does science spend with research that serves the same function as a dictionary?

This also brings me back to the article a few weeks ago about simplifying science and physics by assuming there's only one universe, not a multiverse. Part of his argument, too, was semantics. How to label discoveries and laws and findings. He objected to the idea that we had to label things as true only for OUR universe, as opposed to multi-universally true. I didn't understand why this was an issue-- but now I'm getting a better idea, maybe, where he's coming from. Scientists, especially scientists operating in the math-based, hard science fields (chemistry, physics, etc) are notorious, in my experience, for being unable to communicate effectively with the world outside their specialties. These are people who are brilliant in their field, but unable to explain themselves to the common person in a classroom. They make fabulous researchers, and horrible teachers. Something just doesn't connect, there. Now I'm kind of wondering if it isn't just language-- and the imprecision with which we use it. The imprecision which is inherent in its use, just like how they needed to now do research to show that "high self-esteem" is not a word that is interchangeable with "secure" in psychology. We juggle these words and throw them around taking into account the variable meanings-- but in science, in MATH SCIENCES, precision is everything. Exact numbers, exact formulas, exact measurements. It has to be perfect. It has to be Exactly Correct. One wrong number or letter or function destroys the entire experiment.

Is the gulf between science and communication with general humanity really just a question of precision of language? Is it just semantics?

I had a coupon, and five dollars in borders bucks, so I hit the bookstore at the mall to begin knocking some of the Trades off my list. Picked up Ultimates 3: Who Killed the Scarlet Witch (it's really worse than I thought it was. Which takes some doing, and such a shame, because Ultimates 1 and 2 were AMAZINGLY cool. thank god I got it in paperback and not hardcover-- I might have felt compelled to return it otherwise), and House of M: Civil War, as well as March on Ultimatum. There were a TON of other trades in the store that tempted me, including an awesome selection of DC Superman Titles, but I can't afford to spend all that money, as tempting as the idea is. Hopefully I'll get some cash for my birthday that I can use to buy up a new batch of Trades to cross off my list. I think I need to get caught up on Buffy next.

I'm pretty sure buying comic books at my age is way less socially acceptable than if I were spending money on actual books, especially in a recession. (Shame on me!) What can I say? I'm a comic book geek. That's just how it is.

Also:
Night at the Museum 2 was okay. Not as good as the first one, for sure. Some parts got a little bit long and unnecessary. The story wasn't bad, just the execution was kind of flawed. Maybe there was just too much going on. I don't know. It wasn't that exciting, but it had funny moments.

Edit:
March on Ultimatum was actually really nice, in that it gave a lot of background for Ultimates 3. I kind of wish I'd read it first. I think it fleshed some things out, and it also gave us some interesting food for thought for the upcoming event of Ultimatum.

House of M: Civil War was great! But it could've been even better. Some things were rushed and glossed over, but I feel like perhaps I should have been reading it after I'd read the other House of M books, as opposed to before. Maybe the reason that some of the stuff was glossed over was because it's addressed elsewhere. I don't know yet. It definitely makes me want to read more House of M, though. I'm absolutely fascinated by Magneto's story, and the Scarlet Witch's alternate world.

Also finally got around to reading Secret Invasion: Thor, which was good, but not essential. The 1967 reprint issue in the back I couldn't even sit through. I'm sorry. It's just too campy. I don't know how Adam has read all those early Iron Mans. Anyway, There was nothing really wrong with it. I'm glad that they didn't include this arc with the actual title, and instead did a spin off for Secret Invasion, because I think it would've been really annoying stuck in there. It was a lot shorter than I had anticipated, and I'm not sure it really lived up to the Hook. Here I was thinking the skrulls were going after the people in the town and everything, but not so much. I just didn't buy the threat, or the tension for that part of the story. And I didn't really even buy the threat or the tension involving Asgard directly either. So, I think it kind of fizzled. There was no punch. If you have to have a complete Thor collection, then pick it up, otherwise, I'd say skip it.

We had a really great lunch with Pete and Meg. The burgers were so good, and the salads were sooo tasty, and Meg and Pete brought Blondies for dessert which were DELICIOUS. Jude was super cute, too.

Anyway, it was really nice.

AND

THOR VOLUME TWO HAS ARRIVED.

Oh man, I can't even tell you how excited I was to get this in my hot little hands.
I'm not disappointed, though I think it had less of an "Epic" feel to it. I'm going to sit down and reread Volume one, and then volume two again. For the moment, I kind of want to deck the Avengers.

I'm not sure what else I want to say about this book, except that I like Loki better as a guy than as a Woman. I think turning him into a woman was interesting, and opened up a lot of possibilities, but I'm not sure they're utilizing all of them the way they could be-- or maybe they're not utilizing these potentials as further proof that Loki's change is totally superficial, for all she likes to say otherwise.

The thing that kind of bothers me about Loki, I guess, is that he's supposed to be so brilliant a liar, so excellent a manipulator-- and I guess I want to see him work more subtly in the story than he is. Right now, the way its written, his machinations are obvious (okay, not all of them, but the reveals are too obvious, even if the subtle manipulation itself wasn't). Part of me would like to see a little less from Loki's perspective. I think the focus shifting to Loki takes away from Thor, and really, it takes away from the brilliance of Loki's manipulations, too. I know he's the main villain, so we have to see him, because without Loki working against Thor, there isn't much of a book. Especially in this beginning. And I understand that we needed all this set up to put Thor in the position that he's in now-- I just think it could've been done a little bit more effectively, and with a lot less of a step by step explanation of how it came about.

However, for all of that, my love of this title is not hurt. I still want to know what happens next, and I want to see more of Thor, and how he handles the situation he's now been forced into. I love that I can pick this title up and read it without needing to know what's happened in the previous 588 issues. I love that we're seeing so much of the Asgardians, and the interactions between the fellow gods, though I kind of wanted to see more moments of these Asgardians, so out of their element, interacting with the mortals they find themselves surrounded by. The moments that they have, are Amazing. brilliantly done. But give me more! Let me see how awkward and confused these gods are, now that they're walking among men, with no comprehension of how their technology works, or how people conceptualize things. Let me see more of the local burger flipper trying to explain human customs, or him being flabbergasted by Asgardian ways. Let me see the people in the town watching these gods behave in ways that are unacceptable, and trying to explain to them why they can't just do that on earth. Let me see another town hall meeting, flooded to overflowing by Asgardians (that still might be one of my favorite moments).

Anyway.
That's my Thor Volume Two critique.
I love what they're giving me. I just wish they would give me more of the indirect stuff, and less of the direct.

Similar but not required reading to understand why I'm even reading Thor to begin with, and basically the same final critique: http://hellia.blogspot.com/2009/05/im-going-to-pretend-im-not-embarrassed.html

So I finally, after years of wanting it, and not wanting to spend the money, picked up the House of M trade paperback.

There is something so gut wrenching about this story line. The emotion of Pietro, and Magnus's heartbreak knowing Wanda is so much a lost cause. Knowing that by waging his war against humanity he sacrificed his own children. That regret that will weigh upon him for so long. It really makes me sympathize with him on a whole new level. I mean, you always get the impression that Magneto is more anti-hero than villain. He isn't REALLY a bad man, so much as he's just going about things the wrong way. But this story just shows a whole different side of him, stripped of all the arrogance and all his confidence, he is just a sad man who failed his children. Who can't forgive himself or be forgiven for his mistakes.

And Pietro. Oh, Pietro.

I grieve for all of them. I mean, I've never really been invested in the Scarlet Witch, or Quicksilver, or Magneto, but this story of the House of Magnus really resonates with me.

I think I'll start actively picking up the rest of the House of M trades now that I have this one. Maybe with whatever Birthday money I end up with.

This book, Eve, by Elissa Elliott.
I just don't know what to do about it. I'm 150 pages or so in now, and I'm hating all the narrating characters except for one.
There are Four. FOUR points of view. Two in third person, and two in first person-- and one of the first person narrations is from the point of view of a six year old. not awesome. Plus, I'm only just getting into the stories and then I'm pulled out by the point of view switch, and often, even further, by a shift in time. Now, I don't really demand things be told in a linear fashion. I can handle some jumping around. But this is just getting annoying with its inconsistency.

The story does, thank god, go back to the Garden at least, but even Elohim isn't a compelling character. Lucifer is marginally more interesting. Honestly, I think he's more interesting than Adam, who for being Eve's husband (the character this book is TITLED after) we haven't really seen much of at all.  I mean, as her husband, you'd think he'd figure more prominently in her life, but apparently Adam is going to be a secondary or tertiary character in this novel, without any real depth.

I'm actually thinking that when I'm done reading it, I might have to just return it. Because, really, really it isn't worth keeping on my bookshelf so far. Not even as a research tool.

Seriously, this movie made me cry twice, and then mist up on another two occasions.

I give them an incredible amount of credit for making it so emotionally compelling from pretty much the first scene, when they could easily have eliminated that element altogether in favor of special effects and action sequences.

I loved it. I mean, I flat out loved it. New Kirk, win. New Spock, win. New Scotty, hilarious. New Bones, ingenuous! Chekov and Sulu were absolutely excellent too. The New Bridge?! Holy crap that was awesome!

Adam thought it was pretty good and ranks it 4th behind 6, 4, and 2.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090428/ap_on_go_su_co/us_scotus_broadcast_indecency

All right.

Now, I'm not usually one to care about this kind of crap-- but this is getting ridiculous.
How many different ways are we going to excuse parents from their job of taking care of their kids with stupid laws?

The fleeting expletive is just one more way that we're making excuses, and I'm stupidly sick of it. There are all kinds of ways you can block programming from your kids with the magic of modern technology. There's no reason why the FCC has to take an even stricter hand in it. All it takes is a little bit of button pushing by the adult in the household to keep cursing off your kids programming. Or, god forbid, you watch television WITH your children, and explain to them when a fleeting expletive is used that it is entirely inappropriate and they shouldn't say it. I remember my mom yelled at me for quoting blues brothers while it was running, when I said "Son of a Bitch" and I never forgot the correction. I heard more cursing and swearing on the bus to school than I ever did on television BEFORE THE FLEETING EXPLETIVE RULE WAS IN EFFECT. And I'll guarantee you that even if the FCC pulled the time back to 9pm, kids would still be hearing more curse words on the school bus than they would on TV. Or, you know, in their own HOMES.

Not that I need crass and crude language on television programming-- I don't. Frankly, I think that unnecessary cursing is a sign that someone doesn't have much of an imagination. But I'm far more offended by someone dropping the F-word in the grocery store than I am by someone using it to exclaim their GLEE for winning an award on television.

So here's what I think about the FCC and their Fleeting Expletive: Let parents actually do their job, and stop trying to police language use unnecessarily. If a parent is that concerned about what their kids hear on television, they shouldn't let them watch networks or cable anyway. It isn't as though there isn't enough educational programming available on DVD that's completely g-rated that you can't show them when they want to watch tv.

It is not the FCC's place to act as a parent, it is the PARENT'S place to take responsibility for what their child is watching, or not watching on Television, and that includes fleeting expletives.

Go me.
I called the oral surgeon and have a consultation for the 17th at 2:15 pm.

The odds that they had the exact day that Adam has off were astounding and awesome.

Hopefully everything will work out.

Adam's got his weekend now, and we're going to go to the movies to celebrate the end of the FAA inspection! huzzah!

EDIT:
Curious Case of Benjamin Button was hands down the biggest downer of a movie I've seen in... since I saw Titanic in theaters. I actually think that it was even more depressing than titanic was, and I'm not sure I ever want to watch it again. Adam thought that it was a really great film. I'm not sure anything that makes me that sad can be called great. Although, obviously it had an emotional impact, because I was crying.

I kind of want to see The Ugly Truth though, with Gerard Butler.

I hate to be one of those people-- but right now I can't help myself.

I just finished the twilight series yesterday. It cost me a night of sleep friday night, in case anyone's wondering. I tried going to bed, but my head wouldn't stop overanalyzing the book and I couldn't get myself settled down. Because of Adam's schedule, I didn't dare spend three hours tossing and turning in bed (waking him up) until I got to a point where I could sleep, so I just went back to reading.

In the interest of not ruining the book for Jen, and anyone else who's in the middle of the series and reads my flist, I'm going to keep this vague.

the third book, I thought, was totally acceptable. I natural continuation from book two and satisfactory in a lot of ways.

The fourth book. Sigh.
( Spoiler Free, but not opinion free. )

I don't know. I'm going to give books 3 and 4 a reread and see how I feelt about it after that.

In other Twilight related news, I just listened to the lullaby they wrote for the movie, and I'm wondering why on earth anyone would end a lullaby with a huge crescendo? Someone with some music background-- can you give me an opinion or something on that? are there any rules for something written to be a "lullaby" or is it not something that has any standard of measure? What makes a lullaby a lullaby, in the musical world-- as opposed to just the every day joe schmo world?

And am I ever going to be able to use the expression Joe Schmo again without thinking of Sarah Palin? How unfortunate.

I just saw the preview for the new Star Trek movie.

I'm totally sold. I'm going. it looks awesome, and I can't deny it.

On a totally unrelated note--
I just finished reading Dragon Harper by Todd and Anne McCaffrey.
It is by far the worst book written in the pern series of all time. It is just NOT well written. I can not emphasize enough how poorly written this book is. It's as if Todd McCaffrey suddenly lost his ability to write (if he ever had the ability to begin with). Seriously, it is crap. And it's not as if the plot itself is good either. I mean, there's just no saving this book. The plot is like, this...series of events blown completely out of proportion, and the main character is a Wesley Crusher of Star Trek The Next Generation, saves everyone every time even though he's 15 years old and an idiot kid, figure.

In summary-- Dragon Harper, NOT worth it. your Pern library can live without it. I promise.
Now I'm terrified of Dragon Heart. if that book is as badly written as this last one, I may quit future pern books altogether.