Loving Characters is Easier than Loving People

Last night I watched North and South with my roommate. It is one of my favorite movies, and is basically Pride and Prejudice 50 years later with societal issues about how to deal with the industrial revolution. However, that is not really the reason I bring it up. My roommate, who has also watched it several times and has read the book, and I were talking about the characters like they were real people. It's amazing how much I want them all to end up well (even though I know the ending) and I can see the good in them even though I can also see their faults. Mr Thornton acts harder then he is and definitely has a temper but he also has integrity. Nicolas Higgins is rough around the edges, and has no patience for cowardice but is devoted to his daughters and his cause. Even Fanny, Mr Thorton's sister, who is spoiled, petty, and silly really just craves her families love and respect. So now to the point. I feel like I know these characters and can love them for their good characteristics despite their faults, maybe even seeing the good in their faults. So if these characters are supposed to be people and I have met lots of people why is it so hard to love real people in the same way?
The reason I love these characters is because I know their history and I have spent time with them. I have seen how they act with their families, and in the work place and what they do when they are angry or sad or happy.
Most people I meet I just don't spend that time with. I don't know their backstory, why they are the way they are or how they react to different situations.
I'm not quite sure what to do with this but I still thought I would share it.

Consuming and Creating: Part 8: Bored

School got out!
I've had two roommates that seem bored out of their minds because they don't have school and they haven't gotten jobs yet.
I can't understand them!
The first one exercised and balanced her checkbook and called and talked to her Mom for hours.
The second one sleeps a lot and watches TV.
So this week, my first week out of school and before I started working on Thursday I spent almost one whole day reading obsessively (I finished Calamity by Brandon Sanderson in a day)... but the other days I spent working on my book, drawing, and weeding. There are always so many projects I want to (or should) work on. Art, exercise, school, writing. I don't have time for it all. I was talking about it with my Mom who is a "stay-at-home Mom" with no kids at home... but she is probably one of the most productive people I know. She said she frequently is asked if she gets bored. "No, but I do get lonely."
I would agree with that. Sometimes I do get bored because I do the same thing for too long or I consume too much because for some reason I don't want to actually be productive but I always feel like I have something I could do.
It seems that some people don't know how to be creative if they are not being told by someone to do it... and so then all they can do is consume, and no matter who you are or what you are consuming it seems to me like you will always get bored (eventually) if their isn't any creativity in your diet.
I have wondered what makes the difference. Why do some people need a job to feel busy and others don't. Is it practice? age? personality? I'm not sure but I would lean towards personality or practice.

Presentations

This semester I have had to present quite a few presentations. I would call them PowerPoint presentations but I didn't do them with PowerPoint (I used Google slides), but I don't know what else to call them (like a Kleenex).
I find it interesting that my process in making a presentation is a little different then how I would write a paper, although some of my teachers talk about it like it is the same thing.
The main differences are that for presentations I try to think of how to portray my ideas in images or in as few words as possible. Images are tricky though because you can get images of almost anything on the internet but that doesn't mean it is legal to use it.
Sometimes I think I get distracted by trying to make things pretty or I should say, visibly appealing. Especially because I think some of my teachers could care less about the slides and grade it all on your presentation skills. Which brings up another point. Through several experiences this semester I have realized that I do much better at speaking in front of people when I don't have to memorize the words, and I can just talk. Finally, I often feel awkward doing PowerPoint presentations because I hate reading my slides for the audience. They can read it themselves! but yet I have to say something. I find it hard to balance between talking about the slides and letting my audience read them. Perhaps that is why I prefer the slides that have pictures because then I can just explain the pictures.

This was my opening slide. I made the explosions.

This slide went with the previous presentation. I made the little sparks. I used them throughout the presentation.

This was the one slide I could use for my 3 Minute Thesis. I tweaked it for the final version and included references, but I did make the diagram in the bottom right.

I just put some transparency on the background for this one. But I think it makes it less boring.

This one I made with inkscape (vectors are cool!) to illustrate the process.

This is from a presentation on coal. I made the diagram, but I liked the comparison between the two columns as well.

This was also from my coal presentation. I basically remade a chart from an article I made using some of the terms that we used in my class instead of using the terms that were used in the article. 

Just so you know, these are the funner slides from my presentations. Most of them are just boring lists. I have to admit, when I watch other people present I judge their blurry pictures, and the ones where they don't reference where they got the image.

Super Scientists Unite

For one of my classes I had to write a paper answering some questions based on an article we read.
This is the information of the article I had to read:
England, P., 2007, John Perry's neglected critique of Kelvin's age for the Earth: A missed opportunity in geodynamics: Geological Society of America Today, v. 17, no.1, p. 4-9.

This is a slightly shortened version of my paper:

The age of the earth has been a controversial issue ever since people started guessing or calculating it. At times this has been a religious controversy but at other times it was a controversy between scientific disciplines. This was the case during the late 1800s. Lord Kelvin was an esteemed physicist even being called “the highest authority in science now living” by his contemporary, Mark Twain. Unfortunately, however he was not a geologist. Thus, when he and his associate, John Perry, came up with an age that was far too short from a geological perspective, they were widely criticized or ignored. Ultimately, this stunted geologic theory well into the 20^th century.

In order to calculate the age of the earth Lord Kelvin used a simplified model of the earth. He based his model and calculations on three assumptions: (1) energy is conserved (2) the interior of the earth is a homogenous solid, and (3) all heat sources for the planet were known. Unfortunately, the second and third assumptions were inaccurate. The interior of the earth is neither homogenous nor does it act like a solid. Also, there was another important source of heat that was unknown at that time. Although John Perry did not have all the answers he suspected that the assumptions made by his former mentor were incorrect, not his math. Surprisingly enough, it was not these assumptions that Lord Kelvin was criticized for. Instead, it was his simplified model and calculations that were attacked by geologists and others. Geologists believed that the earth and uniformitarian processes were far too complex to be accounted for by a model. Physicists, after all, are known for simplifying problems. According to Kelvin one geologist, Andrew Ramsey, even said that the two of them might as well agree to disagree because each of their fields was far too complex for the other to understand. If however, these two highly intelligent men would have been willing to try to share their specific knowledge, then perhaps in their collaboration they would have learned the strengths in each others arguments and the weaknesses in their own. Unfortunately this did not occur.

Coming from a background of two disciplines myself, I am often surprised and disturbed at the lack of communication and respect between disciplines, sometimes even similar scientific disciplines. Too often different disciplines apparently relearn the same material, sometimes even coining new words that mean the same thing, or using the same word to mean the opposite thing. This makes communication almost impossible. There should be more of a focus on cross-disciplinary teams who can look at the same problem from different perspectives. Then, when there is a problem like Lord Kelvin's impossibly short age of the earth the true inconsistencies and failures can be found instead of just believing that because the science came from another discipline it must have been done in ignorance.

Deciding to Pay Attention

Since returning school I have had quite a few text books and articles to read. Surprise! :) Many of them are pretty dense and I can read them and not take in anything but I can also choose to digest it. This takes a lot more time and effort but I think it is definitely worth it. I mean really how helpful is it to read it to just say you have read it? 

Sometimes the digesting is nigh on impossible usually because of brain burn out (or too high of a cognitive load if you want to sound smart) or because there are too many distractions but I have been amazed at how much just the decision to want to understand can make. These are some of the things I do to understanding text (or lectures) that are at first pretty dense:

• Decide to pay attention
• Look up words I don't know
• This is particularly important if they show up more then once
• Not only do I look up the definition but I like to look up the etymology because it helps me remember it better
• Be willing to read a sentence or paragraph more than once if I don't get it the first time
• Look at the figures preferably when the text is talking about it
• Make notes
• If I have to think about something for a little bit before I get it I like to paraphrase it in the margin afterwards

Alright, most of those things are probably pretty obvious but I have to admit again how surprised I've been by how much just deciding that I can understand makes. 

I came across a scripture today that kind of said the same thing "...I am left to mourn because of ... the ignorance... of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be." (2 Nephi 32:7 emphasis added).

It is sometimes (always) just easier (lazier) not to try to figure it out, but it is incredibly satisfying to figure it out. The big words are not generally there just to be big and intimidating and to make the author look smart (although that does happen sometimes) they are there because they are more precise and actually convey the meaning better than a bunch of easier but imprecise words.

What looks good

I took a class about the History of Clothing. It was fascinating, but not until recently have I really seen/noticed fads in my life time. When I was in highschool flared pants were popular with form fitting shirts. Now it seems like almost the opposite. Loose blouses and tight legged pants.

I've heard people talk about how wearing those tight pants makes you look good, shows off your figure, etc. I feel like the same arguments were made when I was in high school about a completely different fashion. Also, because of that class I took, it seems as if it has always been that way. Personally I've always liked pants to go over the top of boots not tucked inside them. Now my question is, do I like that look better because when I was developing what little fashion sense I have that was the fashion or is there some other reason.

It just all seems so arbitrary, and it makes me wonder why you should even bother because it will never last. Once I heard a quote that said something like "Fads come and go but you can always be classy."

Shirt Design

I was sitting in class this week when I randomly had a cool idea for a T-shirt. The first row is my Doppler effect T-shirt.
Bottom left is my Brandon Sanderson shirt, and the bottom right is a Mormon or Christian shirt based on 1 Peter 2:2.
I feel like there are other geeky ideas for shirts that I have thought of before but I can't think of them now.

Funny thing is. I rarely wear shirts with words on them or even well know symbols or designs. I don't like the idea of making it too obvious what kind of person I am, or the things I like just by what I wear.... Of course the styles I choose to wear say some things already, but still.