* hi. how do people stop and smell roses? i mean, i’ve tried to, but it’s not enjoyable. keeping my mind in the moment without analyzing the past or thinking about the next moment or future moments is really difficult. and the fact that it’s so difficult is frustrating. i feel like this inability to stop and smell roses is contributing to my overall stress level. my stress level (if you haven’t guessed) is high.

how come some people can free their mind from what’s next or what has happened and some people, like me, find it so hard? it’s like life’s a race and i’m trying to sprint to my death. morbid, right? but exactly how i feel when there are roses to be smelled but my brain is nagging about what’s next, “you have to do laundry. you should go for a run. you’re thirsty. you need to pee…” etc.

the people who know how to stop best are buddhists. they recognize life is all about suffering so the best way out (of the race to get reincarnated as something better or worse depending on how you’ve lived your life a.k.a. karma) is to completely check out of it. live as a monk. meditate and practice yoga during time not spent sleeping or eating donated food. buddha knew how to smell roses.

so, i’m not going to become a monk. i think i would be really ugly bald, not that i would care if i was actually a monk. but i feel that if i keep on this trajectory of anxiety about nextness or pastness i’ll never enjoy the rightnowness. and that would be a shame. maybe it’s just the way i’m thinking about it. maybe it’s not about stopping. apparently this concept makes me uneasy. i feel like a stalled car at a green light with people honking behind me. maybe it’s about letting the happy parts of the race be as happy and long as possible. maybe there’s comfort knowing suffering is just a part of life and once we accept that suffering will come back to us, time spent not suffering is ok.

k *

we’re the most educated generation. 40% of us are enrolled in post-secondary education. 50% of those currently in school would like to earn a graduate or professional degree afterward.

we’re the least married. 1 in 5 of us are, which is half, yes half, the rate of our parents’ generation at our same age. of interest (and perhaps correlated), we are also the least religious generation, with 25% of us being without organized faith of some kind.

we entered the job market during the recession. 37% of us don’t have a job. and the job market is in decline 0.9% between 2006 and 2010.

inflation. from 1915 until 2010, the average inflation rate in canada was 3.26%. ya, that doesn’t mean anything to me either. to put things into perspective, a $100.00 basket of consumer purchases in 1915 would now cost almost $2,000.00. in 1950, a new home cost $8,450.00, a new car cost $1,510.00, a loaf of bread was 12 cents, and an average annual salary was $3,210.00. today, 60% of millenials say they don’t make enough money.

so, whether us unmarried, godless, highly-educated kids still live at home or have moved out, 36% still rely on financial support from our families. blah.

i’m a university graduate and working full-time. i do not live at home and pay rent in an urban centre. i – here it goes – rely on financial support from my family. and it’s frustrating. we are a generation of man-babies. of peter pans and lost boys who can’t grow up. ugh. statistics aside, there are a batch of twenty-somethings that have never existed before. a group caught in between independence and dependence. forget teen angst. what about the ten years after? for those living at home, money is saved, but parents are caught supporting another adult. and surely rooming with the ‘rents puts a bit of a damper on the social life. for those who have moved out, rent is expensive. it’s impossible to save when rent eats up half of your paycheck. and for those of us still in school, well, school’s expensive too. and our parents, unlike any parents had to before them, are footing the bill to varying extents.

it’s a bit of an identity crisis. on one hand, there are adult responsibilities millenials face daily. like, we’re supposed to be grown-ups. there is no such place as neverland, right? on the other hand, my bank account still looks like a student’s and i’m unmarried, so no dual-income action happening. not to mention the godlessness. gah.

this vid expresses the feelings of polarity well – click here to watch.

k *

the idea of eating for your blood type isn’t new but i never bothered trying it because i don’t know my blood type. i called the family doctor i’ve had since birth but she didn’t know it either. odd, i know, but apparently you have to specifically test for it. and i hate needles. in the interest of trying something new sans getting blood taken, i thought that maybe i could work backwards. perhaps i could identify the blood type that sounded most like what i already knew my body, with my stomach as the queen bee, hated.

i think i’m a. pretty sure, actually. and i’m going to follow the advice and see what happens – i’ll let you know how it goes. if you’re like me and don’t know your blood type, check out the descriptions below and see if you can figure it out. oh, and please note i’m not qualified or intending to give medical or diet advice, so do so at your own risk!

type o – the oldest blood type. you’re a predator. you like meat and meat likes you. because your stomach has so much acid to digest all the meat you’ve been hunting, you’re more susceptible to stomach ulcers. you’re also more likely to produce insufficient amounts of iodine, which regulates the thyroid. if your thyroid isn’t working properly, side effects include weight gain, fluid retention and fatigue. the “fight or flight” response is extreme for you. when stressed, you release adrenaline that can cause bouts of excessive anger, temper tantrums, hyperactivity. stress can manifest itself in behaviours like gambling, sensation seeking, risk taking, substance abuse and impulsivity.

how can you help your self-destructive self?

eat – lean, organic meats, vegetables, and fruits.

avoid – wheat, dairy, caffeine, and alcohol.

do – brisk regular exercise that taxes the cardiovascular and muscular skeletal system.

type a – emerged due to a dwindling supply of game to eat and forced the cultivation of grains, livestock, and stable communities, resulting in humans being able to fully utilize nutrients from carbohydrate sources. you’re (or should be starting to be now) a vegetarian. you have low levels of intestinal alkaline phosphatase that makes it difficult to digest and metabolize animal protein and fat. you have high levels of intestinal disaccharide digestive enzyme levels that make the digestion of carbohydrates more efficient. you have a very sensitive immune system and naturally high levels of the stress hormone cortisol, which can cause disrupted sleep patterns, daytime brain fog, increased blood viscosity (ew), and promotes muscle loss and fat gain.

how can you help your stressed-out self?

eat – grains and vegetables in as natural a state as possible and eat smaller meals at regular intervals.

avoid – meat, sugar, alcohol, caffeine, cured meat, and strong smells or perfumes.

do – yoga, meditation, tai chi, weight lifting, and aerobic activities, but do not over-train as this will actually raise cortisol levels.

type b – emerged due to severe change in climate as humans moved from hot, humid areas to cold ones. you have genetic potential for great malleability and the ability to thrive in changeable conditions. although you’re generally physically fit and mentally balanced, you produce higher than normal cortisol levels when stressed. despite this, you recover from stress quickly. certain foods affect the efficiency of your metabolic process, resulting in fatigue, fluid retention, and hypoglycemia, which is a severe drop in blood sugar after eating a meal. oh, and avoid chicken. yup. chicken contains a lectin (sugar-binding protein), which attacks your bloodstream and can lead to strokes and immune disorders. so the next time some muscle-bound guy tells you to eat a bunch of chicken breasts, tell him you’re type b.

how can you help your chicken-avoiding self?

eat – goat, lamb, mutton, rabbit, venison, green vegetables, eggs, and low fat dairy.

avoid – chicken, corn, wheat, buckwheat, lentils, tomatoes, peanuts and sesame seeds.

do – activities that are not too aerobically intense, have an element of mental challenge, and involve other people, such as tennis, martial arts, cycling, hiking and golf.

type ab – the newest blood type. and rare – it’s found in less than 5% of the world’s population. it emerged due to the mixing and mingling of type a’s and b’s. although you can eat meat, you have low levels of stomach acid so the meat you eat tends to get stored as fat. you should steer clear of chicken too. inhibited insulin production results in hypoglycemia, a lowering of blood sugar after meals and leads to less efficient metabolism of foods. under stress, you produce adrenaline and have intense emotions, but you’re able to recover from stress quickly. exercise is critical to maintain both your physical and mental balance.

how can you help your mixed-up self?

eat – tofu, seafood, dairy and green vegetables.

avoid – chicken, corn, wheat, buckwheat, lentils, tomatoes, peanuts, cured meat, sesame seeds, and eating starches and proteins in the same meal.

do – a combination of both calming activities and more intense physical exercise like running, biking, yoga, and tai chi.

anyone out there that already eats for their blood type? did it work for you or not? i’d love to know.

k *

i evaluated from what i felt relief. what trees had been distracting me from seeing the forest? maybe it’s not that things or people cause us stress, but how we let them affect us. maybe i needed a healthy dose of the big picture.

when a person leaves their role in a company, he or she leaves a void. depending on how much the others in the company were dependant on he or she, the void could be small or gapingly large. perhaps he or she is integral to the balance of personalities. perhaps known as more than a co-worker – even a friend. but eventually the void seals up like a wound. some wounds are bad, like gashes that need stitches or broken bones that need a cast. some wounds are just scrapes and bruises that barely need a band-aid. regardless, the company heals. it may take new form, but the show goes on. stuff gets done.

my point, i suppose, is there’s you and then there’s the stuff. the work. grades. other people. life goes on no matter how bumped and bruised you allow yourself to get in the process. there will always be stuff. there won’t always be you. it’s best to try and keep you and the stuff separate. internalizing all the stuff will only cause detriment to, well, all the you.

so, the resolution on the top of my list is to separate myself from the stuff so i can have the drinking tea in my underwear feeling all the time, no matter the circumstance. how, you may ask, do i plan to achieve this?

i will tell myself the following:

1)   “we’re not saving babies.” i wonder what people who save babies tell themselves.

2)   “how do you eat an elephant? one bite at a time.” my dad told me that. it’s a goodie.

3)   “you are replaceable.” we like to think otherwise, but this is true in all scenarios. some may find it depressing. i find it oddly comforting.

4)   “be like duck.” let everything roll like water over greasy feathers.

and if all else fails…

k *

let’s begin by defining serendipity. to stay consistent with its implication in the movie, serendipity is a happy accident or pleasant surprise. an accident is an event or circumstance that occurs without intention. staying true to a (loose) form of determinism, the “accidental” event or occurrence was always going to happen due to the events and circumstances preceding it, but the human being caught up in it was caught by surprise and didn’t foresee it. so, serendipity is really an event or circumstance (or a series of such happenings as in the movie) that is positive for the person or people involved. i like that word.

fate and destiny mean the same thing for the most part; the former can imply an ending caused by death and the latter doesn’t necessarily. both mean a resulting state or circumstance that is predetermined but the events leading up to this unavoidable event are not. so, no matter what you do, you’re going to end up at your fate or destiny. kind of like humans have free will and the power to make choices and take different paths through life, but they all have established and certain endings at which they will all end up.

just my opinion, but if we all have predetermined destinies, it would make sense that we would arrive at and fulfill them if our paths were also predetermined – paths made of linear and intertwined chains of events and circumstances resulting from the happenings that came before. anyway, both schools of thought lead to a predetermined result. and since a person can be destined for many things throughout his or her life, it would make sense that there are things that have to happen to fulfill a true destiny. whether or not you believe it was free will or determinism that got you to a resulting circumstance, stuff happened that impacted a future outcome.

next, let’s define coincidence. the meaning of the word as it relates to the movie and certainly most of our lives is that a coincidence is just a form of synchronicity: the experience of events which are causally unrelated, and yet their occurring together carries meaning. like that time you missed the train but in doing so, bumped into an old friend you with whom you never would have connected with otherwise. think about it. how many times has something like this happened to you? how did it impact your future?

i guess i like serendipity because despite the lead characters’ best efforts to find each other, they kept failing until the right events happen. both characters realize the partner they’re currently with isn’t who they really want to be with and end it before they finally find each other, which only happens because of actions and reactions prior. cheesy, i know, but a good analogy.

maybe if we were all a bit more observant and watched for the signs, we would notice the pattern too. doing this wouldn’t impact our path or destiny (unless, of course, it was meant to), but it would certainly make life a bit more interesting.

i’d love your thoughts, as always.

k *

communication technologies shape and facilitate the way in which we interact with each other. it could be argued that technologies are developed based on human behaviour and wouldn’t catch on unless people liked to communicate in certain ways more than others. there’s also the argument that humans adapt their communication around the status quo for which the technology sets the precedent. it may be a bit of both, but either way, the tools with which we communicate impact the effectiveness, duration and outcome of dating.

for most people in western society in their 20′s, dating begins via facebook or text after meeting someone in-person or online. banter begins and sometimes continues for a while before meeting in-person for the first time or meeting again in-person on a date. arguably, dating has become a lot easier and much more efficient in terms of time versus interaction level. the levels of interaction between people have gone up a ton. but has the quality of dating and the quality of these interactions decreased as a result?

think about it – you don’t have to call or meet up in person to flirt or get to know more about the other person. and you can be texting other people at the same time. not having to call people? huge time saver. back when you needed to pick up a phone and call someone and have a private conversation, you needed to like, plan that in advance. now “courtship” can take place pretty much anywhere, not to mention being able to consider responses and answer accordingly versus on a call.

phone call:

girl: “hello?”

guy: “hey! it’s ______ from saturday night at _______!”

girl: “…uh, hey! how’s it going?”

guy: “good, good. just hittin’ up a little g.t.l. you know, keepin’ it real.”

girl: “um, cool.”

guy: “yea, so i was thinking, wanna meet up later for some drinks?”

girl: “sorry… were you the guy in the blue shirt or the beater?”

guy: “…beater.”

girl: “right… um, i have to work late tonight.”

guy: “oh, that sucks. well, what about tomorrow night?”

girl: “yeah… i’m kinda busy all this week… and then i’m leaving the country…”

guy: “k, well shoot me a text when you get back.”

girl: “yea… will do.”

text convo:

555-677-8888: hey hottie!

555-655-3344: who is this?

555-677-8888: it’s ______ from saturday night at _______!

555-655-3344: wearing the blue shirt or beater?

555-677-8888: beater.

*end of convo*

typing is much more efficent. and much less awkward. or is it? it’s been proven we communicate differently when we’re not face-to-face with a person or even on the phone. when courtship takes place largely via text or facebook and the time comes to meet up in person… it can awkward. there’s a realization that a dating relationship exists on one medium that doesn’t necessarily translate to real life. or there becomes two streams of the relationship because the in-person one is different from the texty/facebook one. i mean, people type stuff they wouldn’t have the gusto to say.

in my research on this topic, i came across a study from 2003/2004. i was going to abandon it as it’s old, but the findings are really interesting between people who prefer talking on their cell phone versus texting. since the evolution of technology and penetration of smartphones with the younger generations, texting has become way easier and user-friendly. so since 2004, people either became less talky and more texty due to technological advances or technology advanced because people realized they liked being texty more than talky. anyway, in 2003 the sample was split 50/50 between the talkers and texters. arguably, since more people are now texty, it’s pretty interesting to see what that means about the shift in human interactions and underlying motivations.

most startling is the finding that texters reported having deeper relationships with those they texted most versus talkers despite there being no difference in the amount of time they had known the person. this seems to be a result of the frequency at which texters maintain their conversations – texters texted their contacts far more frequently than talkers talked to theirs. texters have contacts with which they engage in regular, maybe even perpetual, contact. texters reported that the medium added something extra to their existing relationships with friends and family, but also helped develop new relationships where they committed more time and effort to the process of text composition, writing things they may not have felt comfortable saying face-to- face. the scary part? texters skewed more lonely and anxious than talkers. in short, we’re all lonely, anxious people that feel closer to people we barely know because we can interact with them so frequently and carefully consider our responses and artfully conduct our banter. false sense of relationship? or an easier, less awkward way to date?

in any case, most human beings will likely meet up in person one day for the first date and the relationship that has formed via text or social network won’t be on the same level as the one that forms in person. that’s kinda sad. i guess this happened back in the day when people would write love letters back and forth for years. the difference being that presumably there would have been a face-to-face relationship that preceded the love letter writing. back then, you didn’t run the risk of drunk letter sending (well, maybe) or autocorrect messing with your game. and the back and forth took a while – postal service versus instant.

moral of the story? i guess communicating via text or chat or message shouldn’t replace actual dates – you know, like meeting the person face-to-face and engaging in some kind of activity. dates should probably occur before sexting. if you get along great over text but feel the urge to run away when in-person, chances are things won’t last. i don’t think there’s a rule book, but we should all make sure our text relationships mix with some good healthy face time. hey, we could even throw a call in here and there.

i’d love to hear thoughts on this.

k *

the nuances of this idea are not new and certainly disputed. there are so many variations, and depending on which side you’re on, it really impacts the way in which you live your life. for example, the popular book and movie ‘the secret‘, which is based on the law of attraction – if you think positively and output positive frequencies, positive energy, events and circumstances will come back your way. there are a million stories of people who swear this way of living and thinking works, and that if you truly put positive energy behind something you want, it will happen.

now, i hate to be the person who sits on the fence, but i’m going to. there is truth to the law of attraction as it relates to getting things you want (assuming you believe in free will over determinism, which if you buy into ‘the secret’, you most definitely do). like a kid who wants a bike. every day he tells his parents, “i want a bike.” every friday when he gets his allowance, he says, “thanks mom and dad! i’m saving it for a bike!” even though he doesn’t like broccoli, he eats it and says, “i’ll eat the broccoli so i’m strong enough to ride my bike!” the parents finally get tired of the kid talking about the bike and since the little guy was so darn committed, they buy him a bike. boom. law of attraction.

where ‘the secret’ falls down, at least 2 clear examples i can see, is 1) limitations of physical human ability and 2) relationships. regarding the first, you might decide you want to be a world champion figure skater when you’re 40 years old. if you’ve never skated before or you just suck at skating, no matter how much positive energy you throw out there, you’re probably not going to realize your goal. regarding the second, you can’t force another person to fall in love with you. arguably, if you’re positive enough, the person you want to love you back will do so based on the law of attraction. this works if he/she were a feasible match for you in the first place – if you’re throwing a bunch of positive energy and hormones his/her way, he/she will probably be more receptive to you than if you were shy and avoided him/her. but if a person doesn’t like you back, no amount of positive thinking is going to change that.

i guess, like with karma, i don’t believe there’s some higher power governing whether we’re good or bad or positive or negative, like in the movie, ‘the adjustment bureau‘. i do, however, believe in cause and effect. the 1998 movie, ‘sliding doors‘ starring gwyneth paltrow illustrates this best – the dichotomy between free will and determinism and cause/effect vs. karma/the secret. the movie splits into 2 parallel universes and shows the outcome of each; the first in which she catches her train, and the second in which she misses it. although the people and objects are on the same course around her, she interacts with them differently in both scenarios, affecting the outcome of the subsequent circumstances. some might feel when they miss a train or are late to work that it is their fault, and it is. but the moments and circumstances that precede and follow an event are all part of a larger chain reaction.

so, determinism. very controversial. personally, i don’t think free will and determinism have to be opposing beliefs, but let me explain the difference schools of thought first. free will is our ability as humans to make choices, well, freely. conscious or unconscious, we make choices all the time, but how predetermined our choices are or will be in the future is a touchy subject. as such, there’s 4 main variations:

1) causal determinism – future events are facilitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. if you buy this idea, then you believe that if some person (or god or whatever) had all knowledge of past and present, the future would be 100% predictable down to the last detail.

2) logical determinism – past, present and future propositions are either deemed true or false. i didn’t take logic in university, so how this works goes right over my head, but i think it means every problem posed in the universe is either solvable or unsolvable, flawed or unflawed, and how that translates to real life, i’m not really sure.

3) theological determinism – there’s a god that decides the future of all human beings using some kind of omniscience. this idea is taught across the hindu, jain, buddhist and sikh religions.

4) biological determinism - all behaviours, beliefs, and desires are fixed by our genetic/biochemical make-up, which is affected by genes and environment.

since i’m not about the religious angle (not to mention ‘the adjustment bureau’ was pretty far-fetched) or the logical angle as my mathematical abilities are dismal, i’m more in the causal/biological camp. some people don’t like the thought that the future could be predicted. to that, i argue that no one will ever have all knowledge of past and present events and laws of nature for the entire universe all at once. thus, no one would be able to predict the future. in theory they could. but no one will. i’m ok with that.

if a person’s behaviours, beliefs and desires are mean-spirited, other people will probably end up not liking that person and will be less likely to help him or her out on his or her path through life. this path is a result of a chain of reactions that preceded it and the person is a result of another chain. all these chains mix and mingle and interact and change and if we think about it too much we would go crazy. i used to plan and then get disappointed when things didn’t work out as planned. i find i’m much happier if i allow things to be spontaneous. this way, you are never disappointed, but always surprised. i like surprises.

i think the best way to think about all of these thoughts and theories is we all have dreams and ambitions – some more than others – and they are the result of who we are genetically, which is a result of things that preceded us. we pursue some because we want them more than others. some things work out because they were meant to. some things work out because they weren’t meant to. and if we can find comfort in the fact that the things we wanted that never came to be just weren’t meant to, despite what we feel were our best efforts, then at least we can find peace with our past and avoid anxiety about our future.

what do you believe?

k *

the phrase “ignorance is bliss” is true but bad or good depending how you look at it. on the flipside, “curiosity killed the cat” means the more you know or try to find out, the more at risk you are (not necessarily at risk of dying per se, but you get the metaphor). before things like facebook, twitter, foursquare, etc., there were far less ways to a) partake in questionable behaviour behind your partner’s back and b) creep around and find out about it. the former is kind of irrelevant – i don’t buy the idea that facebook makes people cheat. if your gf is poking dudes other than you on facebook, chances are she wouldn’t have been faithful 20 years ago either. ashley madison is another story. brutal. anyway, the latter is interesting because it allows windows into what your partner is doing outside of the relationship. maybe your bf is squeaky clean but some girl keeps posting winky faces all over his wall and makes you doubt him. oh. and photos. yeah. social media introduces brand new things to fight about:

“who are those guys?! i thought you said it was girls night!”

“who is @shellyxoxo and why is she included on all of your drunk tweets?!”

“why are you the mayor of the starbucks by your exes place?!”

the relationship statuses that didn't make the cut.

over-sharing or creeping on social networks just uncovers the stuff people had no way of knowing before. this is good and bad. good because there’s less ignorance. bad because there’s less bliss. if there is dirt to dig up, it makes it easier to dig it. social networks provides divorce lawyers an overabundance of evidence in divorce cases. the american academy of matrimonial lawyers says 81 percent of its members have used or faced evidence taken from facebook, myspace, twitter, youtube and linkedin over the last five years. facebook, though, is the leader. 66 percent of the lawyers surveyed cited the fb as the source of online evidence.

hey, if you want some tips as to avoiding evidence against you in a messy divorce or break-up, time magazine has some pointers. yup, time magazine. tips and tricks.

1. don’t post pictures or discussions of new purchases or vacations (you’re trying to look like you have less money than you do, of course)

2. if you’re in a custody battle over children, don’t post photos of you partying, drinking and/or doing drugs as this will probably lessen your chances of being deemed a fit parent

3. even if you don’t have the pics posted on your profile, lawyers will find the goodies of you on other profiles

4. don’t update your status about how much you hate your ex as such commentary could be seen as defamatory

5. don’t defriend everyone that is mutual with your ex because, well, that’s rash

feel free to disagree with me, but i’m of the mindset that i would rather know things rather than not and be the dead cat. if your bf/gf has some seriously sketchy behaviour to hide, you probably shouldn’t be with them anyway. and if your bf/gf isn’t sketch, you shouldn’t feel the need to creep. if anything, i guess it keeps us all a bit more honest. yes, you passed out in the bushes, got tagged, and woke up 3 hours after it was posted. everyone totally already saw it. sleep in the bed that you have made (metaphorically, not the bushes).

so, would you rather be a dead, curious cat? or blissfully ignorant?

k *

people are just organisms – very complex ones – that are constantly changing and evolving. i won’t get into philosophical theories on the self here, but you are always your self in some form. there will be consistent things about you as you move through time and space as one entity. but when you’re 15 and have badass friends, it seems like a great idea to jump off the roof on your bike. when you fast forward 30 years and look at the scar on your chin from where your face hit the pavement and think how stupid you were… well, we learn and change and grow. so, in the case of relationships, there are many levels on which a person can be compatible with other people and at varying degrees. some people may find they’re highly compatible with a lot of people at once for different reasons. some people may only find friends in others with a balloon fetish. i believe it is very difficult to find one person that you are highly compatible with forever. if you can find a person that is compatible on many levels at a really high degree, then chances are you will both grow and evolve and remain compatible. but there’s also the chance that the things you have in common at one point in time that remain intact just doesn’t stay important. we all look to a partner to satisfy some need or want that is lacking in our lives and this criteria changes.

i’m not saying relationships can’t work out. i’m not saying they can’t last forever. all i’m saying (well, typing, rather) is that i visualize ‘the one’ as a singular person on earth that you are most compatible with and so have the best chances of growing and changing and still remaining compatible with that person. i think the idea of finding this one person a bit unrealistic. i also think a person could be happy with multiple people depending on what stage of life they’re at. in theory, anyway. we all know divorce rates are increasing. is this because it’s much more socially acceptable nowadays to say, “i know i said you were ‘the one’ but i didn’t realize at the time how much you’re actually not” or is this because things outside of compatibility that held couples together are now moot points?

back in the day, and forgive me because i’m referencing western culture and excluding other cultures since i’m not familiar, which is a flaw in my argument but anyway, men used to work and make money and fix things and women used to have kids and clean and cook. men needed women. women needed men. not to mention the status quo was much more rigid in the sense that if you didn’t exist within a family unit, you were very much excluded from most aspects of society. there was pressure for “normalcy” – not that there isn’t now, but in comparison, present-day seems a lot more liberal. my point is that there were elements of dependency and reliance on each other that held couples together like glue when compatibility failed. there’s a lot of married old people that hate each other. there’s a lot of married old people that love each other too, but they’re probably not as compatible with each other now as when they decided the other was ‘the one’.

present-day women work. they make money and buy stuff. if they can’t watch a diy video on youtube and figure out how to fix something, they can hire someone to do it and pay them. women can have kids and raise kids without a husband (or partner for that matter… sperm bank). couples hire cleaning companies and nannies, not to mention inventions like washing machines, dishwashers and vacuum robots. that must save a lot of time. the dependency/reliance factor is way lower and arguably, the level of compatibility is pushed to the forefront. not only has the divorce rate increased, but the marriage rate has decreased, and the age of marriage has gone up. people are finding compatibility with different people with less pressure to commit to one.

i’d like to think i’ll end up someday with someone who is highly compatible with me. hopefully, our levels of compatibility will be enough and the degree of compatibility so high that we will grow and evolve in ways that still… work. to those reading, do you believe there’s one person – ‘the one’ – that you’re destined to be with “’til death do you part”?

k *

firstly, i want to point out most of the psychological studies conducted on how different people use music and choose music and their demographic was pre-itunes/soundcloud/youtube/keepvid etc., and back when people had to rely on their peer groups and mass media for exposure. i would argue in very recent years, the breadth of music that younger generations listen to is much more broad and large in terms of volume. all genres of music are available online and listening to it wherever you are is easy, which is interesting because i’m assuming everyone has a computer equipped with reliable internet and an ipod. contrary to urban-centre-popular-belief, this is not the case. demographics such as socioeconomic status come into play – not everyone has an ipod or smartphone. but for those with access to the latest in music technology, with our available library of choices being so big, what does that say about how we’re shaped as people?

even within my generation, i remember fast-fowarding through cassette tapes with my friends to find our favourite song. since we wanted to listen to the song over and over again, the rewind/fast-forward process was hugely annoying but necessary to facilitate our dance party. if you had a walkman, your on-the-go experience was limited to the number of songs on your cassette. now, i can hear a song that appeals to me, whip out my ipone, hit shazam, identify and tag it, and purchase it on itunes (or find it later on youtube and keepvid the .mp3, but i don’t mind paying for music… usually).

whatever your personality may be, the main goal of listening to music universally is to manipulate or influence emotional states with the goal of achieving the desired mood state at the time. research conducted (mostly limited to american and uk adolescents, but some key and consistent conclusions could be inferred across the general human population) indicates that people listen to music for 3 reasons.

1) rational/cognitive appreciation

2) emotional regulation (to change or reinforce moods)

3) background to other activities

we all do all of those things at varying times in varying ways. so what does the way we use music say about the style(s) or genre(s) we listen to? well, i’m fairly certain those who listen to zz top aren’t doing so for rational/cognitive appreciation. let’s take a gander at some lyrics:

she’s got legs, she knows how to use them.
she never begs, she knows how to choose them.
she’s holdin’ leg wonderin’ how to feel them.
would you get behind them if you could only find them?
she’s my baby, she’s my baby,
yeah, it’s alright.

she’s got hair down to her fanny.
she’s kinda jet set, try undo her panties.
everytime she’s dancin’ she knows what to do.
everybody wants to see if she can use it.
she’s so fine, she’s all mine,
girl, you got it right.

… how do you undo panties? anyway, i’m pretty sure my dad hadn’t assessed this song on any kind of deeper level than it had a great riff and his four-year-old daughter liked to jump around the house to it and thank god she couldn’t understand the lyrics or what “she’s got legs” implies. “heavy music“ has been characterized in research as stuff like zz top – hard rock, classic rock, heavy metal, and rap – because it’s guitar and/or drum-based, loud and fast, and expresses a variety of intense emotions. “light music” includes pop and dance. i wonder where dubstep fits in. anyway, light music ranges from slow, emotional ballads with important developmental themes to rhythmic melodies designed for dancing. a final category is “eclectic“, or those who do not have strong preferences for either style of music, but rather exhibit flexibility in listening to music according to mood, context, and particular needs at the time.

people who listen to heavy music are more likely to demonstrate lower self-esteem and higher self-doubt. they are more likely to question others’ motives, abilities, and rules; communicate in a blunt and insensitive manner; and resist change when others attempt to persuade them, and are also more likely to be aggressive. yikes. people who listen to light music are more likely to keep their emotions in check and have tendencies to be more sexually conservative. they’re more conscious of what their peers think of them. based on research from the 80′s and 90′s, females listen to and prefer light music qualities more than males since such music reflects their socialization themes, like emotional expressiveness and relationships. males tend to prefer heavy music qualities more than females since it reflects their socialization themes, like independence and dominance. older people prefer light qualities in music compared to younger people since the former has settled down and figured stuff out a bit more than the latter.

the people categorized as eclectic in music preference are the most interesting to me. these people appeared to have less difficulty negotiating their adolescence and did not experience significant issues regarding self-concept, dealing with authority, worrying about their sexuality and peer relationships, having problems with their families, nor experiencing academic concerns. this suggests that they’re flexibly using music according to mood (to reflect and validate, or change), context (alone or with others), and particular needs at the time (for background or for socializing, for example).

so, since new technology has enabled (some) people to have access and listen to such a wide range and volume of music, is it safe to conclude we’re all going to be a lot more well-adjusted as human beings? actually, no. theoretical literature seems to conclude that music preferences are markers of personality characteristics as opposed to being the cause or driver. if you do listen to lots of different music in different genres, you probably reflect a wider range personality traits and may just be better-adjusted than someone who only listens to zz top, rides a harley, and has a long, braided beard. ok, now i’m just getting stereotypical.

k *