the passive and docile.

* hi. last weekend there was a festival in my area that celebrated dogs. or rather, it celebrated the human obsession with dogs. there were dogs in buggies, dogs in booties, dogs with sunglasses, and people everywhere gushing over them. i get it – people love dogs and their own especially, like children. but there’s something strange about these (sometimes tiny) creatures that resemble wild beasts (or vermin, no offence meant) but are happily eating gourmet chow while being pushed around in a stroller and wearing a sequinned vest (true story).

we’ve domesticated dogs to be our pets and manageable and cute. otherwise they’d run away or kill you the minute a leash or collar came into their vicinity. what’s funny, though, is that modern humans share characteristics with domesticated dogs. our evolutionary requirements and theirs share certain conditions that have affected our brains and behaviour, which has manifested in the same way. you might be thinking, “what could i possibly have in common with that dachshund  dressed up like a hot dog?” i’ll explain.

our brains and the processes within them are so easily affected by internal and external chemical and environmental triggers. we rarely even think about it until there’s something like a surge of criminal activity on a full moon. as much as we hate to think of the fragility of the body, it is decidedly worse to think about the malleableness of our minds.

as humans settled and built structures and systems, the adaptation to a framework made it easier to live and thus, the acceptance of the status quo and perpetuated implementation of it on the future humans that moved in was reasonably preferable. a kind of “self-domestication” reflects human motivation to cooperate and communicate and become civilized.

domesticated animals, like us, have lost brain volume – about 10 to 15 percent compared to the wild animal predecessors. via natural selection, less aggressive creatures were favoured to maintain a more peaceful interaction within the species and, in the case of animals, with humans. when the wild ones and domesticates are compared, they think differently. for example, wolves are more prone to flashes of insight, allowing them to solve problems on their own. dogs, with smaller brains, excel at using humans to help them. “man’s best friend” indeed.

so if we’re favouring docility to foster less aggression and killing each other etc., that’s a good thing, right? i’m not sure. i wonder what else we’ve lost in terms of challenging the status quo and not being complacent when we shouldn’t be. life for a dog is great as long as there are loving, doting humans around to do everything. but in the wild, the dog wouldn’t last up against the wolves. if our societal framework deteriorates and the technologies we’ve come to depend on falter, will we survive?

to lighten the mood, i’ll leave you with some ridiculous dog photos.

k *

input and output.

* hi. for the almost 8 in 10 canadians who have access to the internet, being curious about something is easily fixed via searching the readily available internet. pre-internet and easy-to-use web interfaces like google, one had to go to the library or, well, just wonder about stuff until the thought was resolved, forgotten, or drove the person insane. where the past conventions of information finding and sharing were much less ambient, squandering wonder and leaving questions hanging around like dead ends, today’s curious people can get lost in a screen of answers. one question usually leads to an answer that poses another question. before you know it, it’s 4am and the trail of discovery has led to things not even fathomed or questioned at the beginning of the quest.

in the pre-easy-access-internet world, the hypothesis that formed the inputs or means to an end were much more blind. that is, it wouldn’t be clear that the inputs were wrong until after producing the output. often, a singular and conclusive (or inconclusive) output. the curious people hoped that the inputs would prove or disprove a hypothesis or theory and try to weigh all of the variables, but since the output was the answer, the work was done and sometimes useless if the inputs had been miscalculated, misjudged, or misguided.

today, our minds have been cultivated and spoiled by fairly instant gratification, depending on speed of connection and device used. we’re are able to question and accustomed to questioning everything, because the answers are there for the seeking, and the risk of going mad are far less.

that said, there are more potential nuances as to what the input and output is and how they’re related. there are bits of space around and in between the previous definitions.

the ability to question and find answers and question again more makes the input feed an output and that output feed another input. like a living, breathing  organism on a real-time and mass scale. so, to articulate and define what the bits and spaces are to get from problem/opportunity to end goal/solution, a less mechanical and confining framework must be accepted to replace existing models.

if inputs are questions and outputs are answers, perhaps it’s more like a beehive - the “eureka” is finding the queen and success is producing honey. a continuous source of conclusions at a multiplicity and rate only limited by the scope of our curiosity.

does your access to technology make you feel more enabled to be curious?

k *

brain shrinkage.

* hi. we’re currently witnessing the fastest changes in terms of the demands on our brains. our cognitive ability is being challenged to absorb and think in ways and at volumes never before experienced by human beings. driven by technology and the framework of “society-now”, generation z is learning and developing interpersonal relationships like people never did before. generation y or millennials are able to work and build careers in ways never before possible. the technological changes impact everyone who is able to be affected or decides to opts in, but for the younger people and generations beyond, how do the exponentially evolving ways of processing information and interacting with the world change brains? like, the stuff of human physiology?

i set out to see if there was any proof out there on this thought – that our brains had shown signs of physiological change post-technological explosion. it would seems the stuff of our brain is decreasing. yup, a whole tennis ball-sized-worth is missing.

for the last 20,000 years, the average volume of an average brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350. in humans all around the world. all very quickly. are our brains mirroring computers? becoming smaller because they require less space and matter to function faster and process more?

it would appear not. for 2 million years of our evolution, our brains had been getting bigger. the recent shrinkage is concerning - there’s a correlation between bigger brains and being smarter.

so, are we all getting dumber? not necessarily. but that depends on how we define intelligence. scientists had a hunch and looked at population density 19,000,000 to 10,000 years ago to indicate “social complexity” - when more people are concentrated in a geographic region, they form inter-personalized and institutionalized systems. when social complexity was considered low, the brain got bigger. when social complexity was considered high, brains shrank. the conclusion?

we didn’t have to be as smart to stay alive. we had the help of others and systems in place to ease the act of living. and as biological organisms, we evolve in favour of yielding the most intelligence while expending the least amount of energy.

as we rely more and more on technology and consumer products that deliver convenience and lessen the effort of cognition, we will likely continue to shrink our brains. and we can see a trend starting with products like lumosity – along with the gym membership, we’ll need to pay for brain training too. maybe (if we don’t or the cosmos doesn’t render us extinct first), we’ll just become blobs with tiny brains as biological transmitters, controlling the technology of the future that will do everything for us…

scary.

how’s your brain feeling?

k *

decisively happy.

* hi. some people take their time on things. the more time, the better. to these people, procrastinating as much as possible, belabouring, revising, and reworking are all necessary to a better end goal. be it what car to buy, writing an essay, or picking which muffin to eat in a meeting, these people want to stretch the consideration period. these people ask(ed) for extensions on assignments.

some people like a snappy decision – a short timeline that forces the use of common sense and gut instincts. no time for second-guessing, ho-humming, and changing one’s mind. they grab a muffin and don’t look back.

you might be thinking, “oh, those foolish, hasty people. had they considered their muffin choice carefully, they would have not picked the bran and seen the lemon poppyseed instead.” i like bran, though. anyway, and actually, the hasty person is happier with the bran muffin because that’s how our brain works. plus, poppyseeds and meetings don’t really mix, and the flip-floppy mind-changers would end up sharing their thoughts with bits of black between their teeth.

so how do our brains work? we’ve developed a way to conjure up the future and simulate experiences that haven’t happened yet. the problem is that this simulator doesn’t work very well. that sucks, huh? we imagine stuff is going to be way better than it actually ends up being. this explains both the outcome of psychologists’ studies based on this hypothesis and what people have always just kind of noticed – the grass is always greener on the other side.

my muffin analogy isn’t quite right and i’m not saying making hasty decisions is the way to go, although i like a good, solid, sensible, timely, decision. i get anxious when someone can’t make up their mind and extremely frustrated. this is good in terms of my overall happiness according to “impact bias”, the theory that due to our evolutionary ability to adapt, what we had imagined the outcome of our drawn-out choices and decisions will never measure up to what it ends up being. maybe that’s why spontaneous adventures and good times always seem better than the thing you’ve been looking forward to and building up in your head for six months.

we lose interest in things over time or our response to the circumstance or situation eventually come back to a norm or equilibrium, all to keep our stress, happiness, and responses overall in some kind of check. and we’re unable to anticipate or factor in this adaptation when we simulate experiences. ultimately, letting things stew in your brain will lead to unhappiness.

think about that. but not for too long.

k *

hard copy.

* hi. call me old fashioned, but there’s just something about a hard copy - a tangible page with print to read versus a screen. i recognize that this kills trees and the things out of which ink is made. i also love the fact that e-reader companies like kobo have given authors a way to self-publish, taking cues from the music industry and weakening the publishing company’s ability to deem work difficult to sell to the masses. so, to be clear, this is not a post about how i don’t like e-readers and e-books.

in university and having course material posted online, i craved a text book or a printed copy instead that i could highlight, bend pages, and carry around with me. writing essays, i used to think to myself, “remember that paragraph on that page where you spilled the coffee?” is it a visual thing i miss from reading from a screen? or a tangible thing? it’s a kinetic relationship that i prefer over a digital experience. it’s the snuggling up with tea, a blanket, and a good book. i’m sure people snuggle up with their e-reader and like it just fine. to me, it’s not the same.

i’m working on something right now and with colleagues that i hadn’t worked with before. i learned that one of them needed printed copies of everything because she couldn’t read stuff on-screen. but why? why do her and i share this aversion to reading the soft copy? a talk that i watched about what motivates us to work and feel good about it triggered a potential partial answer, or at least, a cool parallel.

maybe we want to be able to mark our progress as we move through the material. after we’ve read it, highlighted it, spilled salad all over it (friday), or whatever, we feel a sense of accomplishment. there is something tangible that we’ve digested mentally and can feel that we know. when i’m reading a book i can say, “i’m halfway through” and feel halfway and see halfway when i hold it.

the nielsen norman group did a little study. i call it “little” because it was deemed not statistically significant. but alas, other people were thinking the same thing i was. the verdict? people reading on an ipad measured a 6.2% lower reading speed than the printed book. people reading on a kindle measured 10.7% slower than print. like sisyphus pushing his rock uphill, maybe we’re all a little demotivated by not having a sense of our progress and accomplishment physically.

so what do you like – hard or soft? copy, that is.

k *

reality is fantastic.

* hi. as i watched reality television with two friends over a glass or three of wine this weekend, i couldn’t help but draw some parallels between a lot of the ad land conversations i’d been having lately (not to be confused with the smutty and outrageous television content being similar to the discussions taking place at work). i mean that the commoditization of content and the relentless push of it has rendered the art of storytelling secondary and forgotten. to quote an ad man, “who needs fiction? reality is fantastic!”

not only is it fantastic, but accessible. a representative from google recently visited and reminded me yet again that i’m not up on any of the newest and buzz-worthy blogs, gaming technology, or internet meets lifestyle capabilities. the dialogue in my head; “will i ever be? doubt it. do i need to be? maybe. do i wish i was? yes. should i skip the gym tonight and bookmark blogs, build something on minecraft, and come up with an amazing social campaign that integrates google+ hangouts? probably.”

pangs of fomo ensued. but then the representative said something that really struck a chord. he said that the capabilities of technology had surpassed our imaginations. that there were more capabilities than we humans know with which to do. that it’s not about the behaviour we want to evoke, but ways the idea utilizes the technology.

before the internet, airplanes, and telephones, people didn’t have access to a reality that wasn’t their own. enrichment, entertainment, and education was largely found in the arts; novels, plays, music, painting, etc. whether a consumer of art or a creator of art, art was a reflection of the imagination. invention. fiction.

i guess to sum up these fragmented paragraphs, i’m feeling that the demand for content in the vast spaces available for it and ways to disseminate it is putting the cart in front of the horse. to quote another relevant soundbite, “it’s not about the test drivers. it’s about the video of them test driving for the website.” it all seems a bit backward. is it about creating content? or about having ideas? i feel the push for the former hinders the latter. technology will never surpass our imaginations. technology just shapes how we imagine things. and it’s the people that don’t let anything shape their thoughts that think up the next thing.

so here i am, writing another chunk of content. i’m sending it out into the clutter, adding to the mess. but selfishly for me, i’m creating something. and now my imagination stopped feeling lonely.

k *

go advertise yourself.

* hi. this post starts with a bit of a set-up, but stay with me. i promise the title is eventually relevant to the content. i was grabbing lunch in the food court at the mall. i had just come from the gym and was sans make-up, in a t-shirt, and ravenous. oddly enough and to my sheer mortification, a man approached my table and sat down. i was shocked and intrigued, wondering if he was going to rob me, invite me to be on a hidden camera tv show, or try and pick me up. i was not interested in any of the above, but least favourable of all, it seemed he was, in fact, hitting on me. odd, i know.

he introduced himself and said he likes to meet new people. before i had a chance to say that i didn’t and i just wanted to eat my chicken salad, he went on to say that he works in sales (never specifying what he sells and i never asked) and manages fifteen people. i guess the fact that he “manages people” was supposed to be impressive or validate that he had a legitimate job. i’m willing to be wrong but am confident everything that came out of this man’s mouth was thought up on the fly. he asked me what i did. don’t ask me why – maybe for sheer entertainment – but i answered him, “advertising”.

well, he found that fascinating. he regaled me with tales of how he was schooled in psychology, and that advertising is just that – psychology. and how he does the marketing for his own, vague, non-descript sales company. he spoke in grandiose, generalized terms about the psychology of advertising and i finally dug into my salad while he did so. it wasn’t until he said the following that i felt the need to look up from my plate; “everybody’s advertising themselves now, especially with social networking sites.”

this rubbed me the wrong way. i didn’t agree, and i wasn’t sure why. i had sat through his spiel thus far feeling quite nonchalant. now, i was irritated. i told him i had to go and choked down the rest of the chicken. he ignored me and kept talking until i stood up, grabbed my coat and gym bag and started walking away with my tray. he asked if i wanted to meet him for coffee sometime and i said, “i’m going to have to politely decline.”

and that was that.

so why has the food-court-accosting-salesman’s remarks stuck in my head and continued to bug me? well, i think it’s because i was struggling with the implication of what came first; social media or advertising the self. the way we interact with each other through our verbal and physical communication and cues are most primitively the way we try to shape others’ perceptions of ourselves. so with the invention of things like clothing, decor, music, etc., more and more cues became available to not only shape us as human beings, but form an essence around a person. a look and feel. a brand.

so with goods and services, all we did was layer cues that consumers (a.k.a. people) would like to see reflected in themselves. a personification of sorts that would make something functional or completely useless have relatable or aspirational qualities that we like or want. the person we want to be, to like, or to be liked by. this is the stuff of brands.

social media is just another layer, enabling humans to add even more context and texture to the brand that is he or she. the he or she they want the world to see. the intentional things put forth to shape others’ perceptions. we now have more opportunity to show more people the image we want them to see. we’ve always “advertised” ourselves if we really consider what that means. it’s not some newfangled ability.

i’m being facetious. i mean, nowadays, more and more people are becoming a brand. like a celebrity with a reality tv show selling branded perfume and nail polish for no relevant reason, for example. but still, that’s no different than buying a pair of running shoes to gain the projection of performance than the perceived gain of the projected celebrity personality from the perfume or nail polish.

maybe what my unwanted lunch date is picking up on is this more blatant and obvious hustle. the very intentional cultivation of the external self. it wasn’t that humans didn’t do it before, but now we’re able to have a much larger and regular audience.

maybe i should eat alone in food courts more often to spark blog fodder.

k *

logophile.

my condo building installed digital screens in the elevators, so now tenants can be abreast of how the market’s doing, the weather, celebrity gossip, and the cleaning of the parking garage, all on the ride up or down. it really helps minimize the awkwardness of being in close and silent proximity to strangers and dogs. now we all stare up at this screen. whether we care what’s on there or not. captive audience.

i learned a new word today on my decent. the word “logophile” refers to “a word lover or buff”. i found that odd. a logo is something visual. something a designer or art director thinks up and creates. not articulated by words. words are for writers and readers. not logos.

maybe there’s more here than meets the eye (ha) – a “logo” is defined as a graphic representation or symbol of a company name/trademark, uniquely designed for ready recognition. if we think of the most iconic brands in our current repertoire, the visual treatment that stands for that brand instantly comes to mind. nike? think checkmark. apple? think… well, an apple. but more powerful is the additional information attached, which is conjured up in conjunction; the meaning, the backstory, the words. the words.

so maybe it does make sense. they say a picture is worth a thousand words. but that word is still confusing. i mean, “logophile” sounds like it would refer to a lover of logos… or something.

thanks to the digital screens for inspiring this one.

k *

v-day.

* hi. i don’t usually go for the topical posts, but what the hell. on this snowy and rainy valentine’s day, i’m writing this while waiting for a cab. i’m going to sing karaoke with my friend a * and really looking forward to belting out some good, love, power-ballads and embarrassing myself in front of strangers. seriously. not being sarcastic.

i wanted to write this because a lot of people get down about being single today. but today is not about whether you’re single or with someone else. actually, today is about some saint named valentine. but it’s a good excuse to tell the people you care about that, well, you care about them. whether it be with chalky heart-shaped candies or flowers, it’s a good day to do something special for the people you like and love.

like my dad. he never forgets valentine’s day. today he sent me an e-greeting with a photo of him on a booze cruise proudly wearing the t-shirt i gave him when i graduated university. i felt the love.

so wherever you are and whoever you’re with and even if you’re by yourself, tell someone you care and you might just make their day.

wish me luck with the singing.

k *

heart shock.

* hi. i don’t mean defibrillation. i mean the kind of shock your body goes into when experiencing trauma. i mean, most people go into shock when they experience extreme trauma. like, really bad accidents. i don’t want to give examples. or if you’re me, getting pinched by a hermit crab and passing out in the middle of a mall to be awakened by mall security, an ice pack on the back of your neck, and the sheer mortification that yes, you’re on the floor of the mall and yes, there’s a bunch of people watching and yes, from a hermit crab pinch.

regardless, shock is the body’s way of protecting the brain from registering what’s going on and freaking out. completely snapping. well, my heart is in shock. i don’t know if it’s possible, and it’s never happened before, but it is. full shock mode.

how do i know? i know because my brain knows something that my heart doesn’t. something my heart hasn’t registered yet. i know this because it hasn’t reacted. it hasn’t freaked out. my heart hasn’t snapped into a million pieces and exploded like shrapnel into my internal organs rendering me dead. a bit extreme, i know. but my heart doesn’t know what my head does. yet.

so i wait. it’s eerie, this state of heart shock. at first i was glad. but when the shock wears off – and it will – i fear my heart’s reaction. i know it will break. there will be shrapnel that might get stuck and linger forever, like a splinter your dad just couldn’t tweeze out.

i’ve even tried to induce my heart out of shock. i’ve tried to force my brain and my heart to talk to each other, tricking them into situations where they might meet in the hallway and say, “oh hey! haven’t talked in a while! we should really have a status…” and then it would be over. the shock, that is. unstoppable heart demolition would begin. and it would suck. but then i could deal with it. i could work toward fixing it.

alas, i wait.

k *