the chair.

"and if by my efforts
i become someone i like,
maybe that someone will be a somebody
in time and history's sight."
--terrance long

a chair is a delightful thing. chairs come in a remarkable variety of styles, colors, shapes, sizes, and aesthetics. a good chair can be practical or frivolous, large or small, ornate or homely, and belong to one or many persons. if we're thinking in terms of plato's theory of forms, any chair could be the chair given that it suits the role its been assigned.

as i've recently read many a text on world issues, global struggles of various sorts, local problems and those plaguing distant lands, i've wondered what role i've to play in being a positive force in relation to any of them. i find hope in the chair. some of the best chairs i've encountered in my life have been modest in appearance, upkeep, or even comfort--but suit their opportunities to play their parts blissfully.

my goal in life is to suit my part blissfully.

blogging about paper.

*important*
to read this post, click on the giant notebook. feel free to scroll down after you read it.

now feel free to scroll down.

in case you were curious, this is what it looks like without the flip--with matchbook authenticity check even! just click on this notebook to see it in a better, more glorious resolution.

illusory correlations.

"of course i failed--i forgot to wear my lucky trousers."

the most clear and concise explanation of illusory correlation that i've found comes from wikipedia: "the phenomenon of seeing the relationship one expects in a set of data even when no such relationship exists." data here can be taken as traditional data (statistics, reports, etc.), and can also be applied to a broader scope in understanding it as events, experiences, perceptions, and so on.

this is a common phenomenon and examples of it can be found in most any context. stereotypes are an extremely common example, studies claiming correlation between environmental factors and personal effects can readily fall victim to it, and people simply seeking explanations will typically find them, though they may be completely irrelevant and utterly incorrect (conveniently animating this principle). this is why someone may think that people named trace are not as handsome as neils or rogers(after people meet me, neil, and roger), that pot roasts cure colds (after an ill child pips up after a bit of beef), or that a pair of trousers dictates his or her academic fate (after a success or failure in a pair of 501s).

i've not failed any tests as of recent, but illusory correlations have certainly seemed to have played a role in many of my recent actions. both in the way i make decisions and in the way i explain the reasons of their successes or failures, retrospect and further experience seems to be showing where various correlations were indeed illusory.

from merriam-webster:
illusory: based on or producing illusion.
correlation: the state or relation of correlated. specifically : a relationship existing between phenomena or things.

quando quando quando.

"do one thing everyday that scares you."
-eleanor roosevelt

in other words, you should be going out of your way to do frightening things everyday. i think eleanor was on to something. as of recent, i've been trying to implement this little gem. in lots of ways.

we'll assume that 'to scare' can be defined as instilling fear. the merriam-webster dictionary defines fear as "an unpleasant, often strong, emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger." danger is defined by the same source as "exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm, or loss." therefore, in order to fulfill this advice, i need to do something that the excites anticipation or awareness of potential injury, pain, harm, or loss. when i map it out like that, it's not so hard.

using the preceding as our jumping point, if i do one of the following things a day, then i'll be following eleanor's words of wisdom.

• correcting people.
  
• cooking something that i'm not experienced at cooking.
  
• doing most anything in front of large crowds.
• doing things i've claimed to be good at.
  
• submitting applications.
• participating in competitions.
• dancing.
• looking down from heights.
• trying particularly foreign foods.
  
• giving presentations.
• showing people personal works (music, writing, etc).
• going into particularly dark places.

now, of course there are many things on this list where saying they scare me is a bit of a stretch whereas others are a bit more unnerving. eating a somewhat frightening foreign food is nothing close to looking down from heights. and heights aren't near what other things may be. however, everything on that list at the very least make me uncomfortable. and at that, many of them are things are things i do pretty often, and even enjoy doing. again, foreign foods are always fun. they still can make me a bit uncomfortable. that's the whole point, though.

it is my belief that eleanor advised this because we're simply a big bunch of sissies in far too many ways. indeed, i am often nothing but a big sissy. and how does one cure one's self of sissiness? by making his or her sissy self face the music. eat a bug, sing to a crowd, and go cliff diving.

and so i shall. sooner or later.

rorschach bell.

greetings.
we're going to try a little something with this post. i'm quite curious to see how it turns out. a little background first.

no doubt many of you have seen or heard of inkblot tests, more formally titled rorschach tests after their creator. the idea behind the test is that a participant is shown an ambiguous shape and the participant projects meaning onto it and says what the object "is." of course it's not really the shape of anything. it's completely random. the meaning it has to the viewer is only that which the viewer projects onto it. dig?

so i was eating taco bell today, as i often do, and on my way to my seat grabbed some extra hot sauce and napkins for today's post. here are the rules. as you scroll down the page, you'll be shown six sauceblots. your job is to decide what you think each is, and write it down. the blots will be numbered, so when you're done, post your numbered answers as a comment if you could be so kind. the only rules are that you only look at one sauceblot at a time and that you don't look at anyone else's answers before you have your own. we don't want their answers influencing yours.

and yes, they may not be exactly symmetrical. in an ideal world they would be, but with the resources as hand, we'll make do.

so... go ahead. start projecting meaning.

scroll down.

sauceblot one.

stop.

scroll down.

sauceblot two.

stop.

scroll down.

sauceblot three.

stop.

scroll down.

sauceblot four.

stop.

scroll down.

sauceblot five.

stop.

scroll down.

sauceblot six.

you're done! now remember, make sure you've recorded your answers before you go any further so that you don't see the answers that other people have placed before you put your own down. thanks! i look forward to seeing what everybody says. i'll post my answers as soon as i finish posting this whole thing.

thanks all, see you next time.

owain phyfe.

hey friends. it's been a while.

this is a quick post to share a bit of writing I did in one of my psychology classes. we were asked to write a quick paragraph or two about ourselves to help other people remember us. did i get a bit carried away? perhaps. on the other hand, they'll probably remember better for it. and as many of you may not really know me very well, i thought i'd post it to help introduce myself.

About... me.

The name is Trace Lund. Trace as in a synonym for residue; Lund as in the Swedish university. I’m a junior or senior depending on how you view my credits, as many psych majors are. My main interests in psychology are abnormal and developmental psych. Hopefully by the end of my academic journey I’ll be able to obtain a doctorate. But how knows? Maybe I’ll wind up being a traveling minstrel instead. Ideally, I’d be able to do both. I play a few stringed instruments, as well as general percussion, so it’s a fair possibility, really. I could travel the nation—nay, the world—spreading delightful music and programs designed to help all those willing to hear my words on psychology.

So. Hopefully you weren’t looking for anything to profound. I think the mental image of a mandolin-playing psychologist with a monocle (and possibly a traditional Victorian garb) may prove to be more helpful in remembering this than my age or town of origin.

i'm sure they'll all want to be in my group now. and no doubt this was very insightful for you. hopefully your new year is going well. maybe i'll post something worthwhile in the near future. maybe.

and here's the link to explain the title.

the scientific method.

so. as many of you know, i was hoping to go to med school. and to be fair, i'm not completely dismissing the idea. however, this last semester has taught me something invaluable--i hate the "hard" sciences. just to clarify, that doesn't mean the challenging sciences, that means things that don't involve people, essentially. psychology, for instance, is often considered a "soft" science. well soften me up, folks, for if soft be psychologists, soft i hope to be. and while the idea of being a medical doctor does still has it's appeal... well, read on.

here's the thing. this semester was an experiment of sorts. the scientific method basically states that to test something, you should make a hypothesis and run the test to see how it goes. simple enough. this semester, i hypothesized that i'd be able to not only learn to beat my science courses, but that i'd learn to enjoy them. my hypothesis was based in my success, my results are based in defeat.

now, another important part of interpreting results that most people (including myself) don't learn until a bit after elementary school science is the idea of the null hypothesis. here's the example, compliments of nassim nicholas taleb. if you do a study to prove there are only white swans in the world, you can never be sure, really. the reason is there may always be a little black swan hidden away in an old man's basement somewhere, completely defying your theory (side note, there are black swans). therefore, certain phraseology is used to ensure that honesty and operational definitions are present. to assume there is no difference or your variable of choice is present(ie, there is no black swan, i don't want to be a doctor) is called 'the null hypothesis.' therefore, if we find a black swan (or find that through my classes i want to be a doctor), we would reject the null hypothesis, as it is not the case (in cases with numbers, this is done statistically, of course). however, if we do not find this to be the case, we cannot simply accept the null. you'll remember the old man with the black swan. you never really know. so instead of saying, "yes, we embrace the null. it's true." we fail to reject the null hypothesis. thus saying that as far as we can tell, the null holds true.

this semester, as pertaining to my wanting to go to med school, i found no black swans. i failed to reject the null. that means that as far as the time being is concerned, i don't especially want to be a doctor. that being said, there are errors that can play into things, of course. but i can honestly say that after this semester of dealing with chemistry again, hating biology, and finding the only bright spot in my week being my psychological testing class, that the null was pretty heavily enforced.

so next semester i'll be taking a sabbatical from all classes outside of psychology, and i'm quite excited. i'll be doing nothing but psych all day as far as academics is concerned, and i'm thrilled about it. the way i see it, next semester's null will be that i don't want to go into psychology as a professional field. i'm sincerely hoping to find a black swan.

and on a sidenote, over thanksgiving break i got to paint my nephews' and one of my niece's faces in the likeness of kiss. it's not really associated at all with the rest of my post, but still cool enough that i'm sharing it.

boom.