Sony and The Unfinished Swan

So for this week, I'd like to talk about this CNN article titled "Indie video games get help from a 'big brother'". The general premise of the article is that Sony (makers of the PS3, one of the three major current generation video game consoles), is getting behind a tiny indie group called Giant Sparrow. Giant Sparrow plans on making a game called The Unfinished Swan where you start in a perfectly blank world and use the various buttons to paint the world behind you to reveal the background, which definitely sounds cool, but I'd like to focus more on that first part: Sony is backing them.

Now, reading this article is interesting for a lot of reasons. First off, I never knew that Sony also backed thatgamecompany, who made Flower and Journey. Both of those are widely lauded as some of the best indie games on the system, and that's not just because Sony backed them. They're good. Seriously. Check them out. (Flower is one of my favorites because it's one of very few experiences I've ever had where not a single word was ever spoken yet it still made me cry).

Second, I find it really interesting to believe that Sony is giving money to indie projects. I mean, here's a company who puts out titles like Uncharted, which has sold millions of copies, saying things like it will be a success "if they can get just one person to say "Unfinished Swan" has affected them". That's a huge difference in outlook. AAA titles with huge, huge budgets are becoming more and more common and more and more homogenized. Call of Duty releases a new $60 game a year that absurd amounts of people buy, and there are thousands of other clones that keep the shooting mechanics, cover mechanics, setting, etc. The worst part is that even other first person shooters that were different are starting to become more and more like Call of Duty because publishers think that "like Call of Duty" is what is going to sell.

This is why Sony putting money into indie projects makes me happy. Not only is it not homogenized, but it's not even all that profitable. I mean, college students certainly do know how to stretch a dollar, so as far as return on investment goes, it might not be too unprofitable, but indie games usually only sell for around $10. Any money Sony puts into The Unfinished Swan may be going into something most people will have never heard of. They'll probably make back their investment, but they certainly won't make billions of dollars in profit, so what does this say to me?

It says that even though Sony is obviously interested in profit, maybe they're interested in the art too. Maybe this is like the charitable arm of the company, taking promising developers who really have the inspiration and the drive to make something great and granting them the tools they need. Maybe there really is room in the high-profile video game world for something as unusual and innovative as The Unfinished Swan, and maybe there really is hope for AAA titles to share the spotlight a bit.

Maybe.

Harassment is never okay.

Hello, everyone. So, like, um, everyone here, I'm also white and (I think?) middle class. I'm also a chick. I believe we've made this part clear.

That said, despite whatever class I may be in, I kind of grew up in the ghetto, but to be honest, didn't really realize it until I started going to school outside of it. I remember looking around near the end of my 5th grade year and noticing that I was literally the only white person in my class. I can't tell you if that's an accurate descriptor of how my entire elementary school education went, because I honestly don't remember. I didn't notice or care what race anyone else was. It didn't make a difference because I was tiny and didn't care about such things.

Honestly though, to me, it really just feels like discrimination based on race is an issue that just isn't from our time. I don't feel like I've passed judgments based on race nor do I really feel like anyone I know has. Because of this, I really feel like laws meant to "level the playing field" based on race are really superfluous. Obviously, we shouldn't get rid of anti-discrimination laws. There needs to be a legal basis for persecuting the kind of jerkfaces who would make decisions that way, but I just don't think it's widespread enough to require things like affirmative action to get there. John brought up the idea of equal opportunity employers and that's great, so I don't understand why there are practices that explicitly take into account things like race and gender.

The fact is that whether you are black, white, hispanic, Asian, or whatever race you identify as, you should be judged by the qualities you have and not what race you are. That said, there are definitely people that are at a disadvantage. It is so much harder to go from a family that has never gone to college and expects you to go straight to work after (or during) high school to a college education. That is a hard road that requires a lot of work and that sucks, however, that road is just as hard regardless of what race you are. If you are white and impoverished, that doesn't make you less impoverished. Basically, as far as leveling the playing field goes, I think it can be necessary, but I really think the factors that need to be leveled might be race-corrolated, but that's certainly not what they should be based on.

Unfortunately, I do think there's a bigger issue that America has today regarding discrimination, and I think that that's discrimination based on gender. In case you haven't gathered by now, I'm a girl majoring in computer science, which is a heavily male-dominated field. The problem is that while being a different race doesn't really affect anything, being a different gender does (a bit). Females get pregnant (Guys do not). Societally, females are more likely to be stay-at-home parents than males are. Honestly though, I really feel like the major problem is just the way people treat gender relations. Societally, there are a lot of differences between what men and women are expected to be, and a lot of them are crap. For example, there was a recent controversy about a woman who entered a fighting game tournament and eventually quit because of being sexually harassed. When asked for comment about it, the coach actually said that "the sexual harassment is part of our culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community."

Obviously, you can find horror stories anywhere about any discrimination, but this seems so much more widespread. Genders are different and I don't think we as a society have really moved past that people can be whatever they want to be (or be into whoever they want to be). I'm a programmer and I feel like because I'm a girl, I have to work harder and be better than my male counterparts because I'm absolutely terrified of being hired just because I'm a chick. I remember when my friend got into college with me I was so excited, not just for him, but because that meant that someone with similar qualifications to me was accepted into the same program. And while I guess it's hard to argue against something that makes me work harder and be better, that's just not something I should have to be afraid of.

I firmly believe that in a lot of respects (and as cheesy as it sounds), diversity is its own reward. If you're working on designing a game (I admit I have a bit of a narrow focus), you want as many different ideas and viewpoints as you can. If you were constantly surrounded by the people you grew up with and went to school with, then how much would you really be challenged and grow? I believe that there are so many advantages to casting as broad a net as possible and I believe that there are qualified people in just about all of those categories. However, if you're not qualified for a job, you shouldn't get it solely on the basis of being the token [insert minority here].

Talking about death is sad.

So this has been a really interesting (if sad) week of posts. I think everyone has brought up fascinating and informative ideas and I'm glad to be here to share my opinions.

First off, I agree wholeheartedly with Pendleton when she says that it's not up to us to legislate morality and personal opinions on morality are not bases for laws. On the flip side, laws are meant to protect the people. Personally though, I believe that there isn't any reason to make a law protecting us from ourselves. Laws are to protect us from other people (or other people from us, as the case may be).

That said, there are lots of factors to assisted suicide. A family member on life support can be a huge drain on a families resources, both financial and mental, and one might argue that if there is just about no chance of the person ever recovering (or recovering with serious brain damage), it would be more worth it to pull the plug. Others might argue that doctors can be wrong and if there is any chance then they should continue as long as they are able. I think that falls squarely into the category of personal choice. The person can't stay alive on their own so allowing the person to die naturally is not really assisted suicide. The same (in my opinion) goes for a Do Not Resuscitate order. If the person's body is already self-destructing, letting it do that is just the natural cycle of life and death.

Of course, one could argue that it's the doctor's job to mess with the natural cycle of life and death. Their job is to prolong life, which has led to an increase of a slew of diseases affecting the elderly. Obviously, this doesn't mean we should stop letting people practice medicine, but it does mean there are more things to consider than someone's body self-destructing.

For example, Brandon brought up the idea of Alzheimer's and how he'd hate to life as a shell of his former self. I fully agree. It must be terrible to live that way and I can say first hand how terrible it is to be around. They aren't the person they used to be, and that's terrifying, but at the same time...I don't think I'd want to die. I think life could still hold happiness. I personally really wouldn't want anyone to have to take care of me and deal with me like that but I don't think I'd want to die.

There was an episode of SVU that brought up the idea that "there is no such thing as a terminal mental illness" and that's both true and sad. If your body is working fine, your brain can be wreaking havoc and there just isn't a quantitative way to measure that. You can't measure quality of life and you can't say "Well, this is bad enough where you are eligible for assisted suicide but you just have to suck it up." There is no way to draw that line. I think if there are diseases where the person suffering has no effective treatment and desires assisted suicide, then it should be an available option after a certain waiting period. Obviously, this seems like a wide net, but I really mean this for only serious comprehensively life-affecting diseases. This is not for people with depression that can be treated.

As far as physical diseases go, I think the body really has its own way of dealing with things, but a slow, painful death is not something anyone should have to endure if it's the only future ahead of them. And even in situations where it might not be terminal, if it's not treatable (and I mean treatable, not curable), then it really seems like the person's choice as to whether or not they would like to endure it.

Health care is expensive and it seems almost immoral to me to force someone to pay for what I can only assume is ridiculously expensive health care (for such a presumably serious disease) just to prolong a life they don't want to live. If someone really wants to end their life, they can probably find a way, and I think giving them a humane option (after serious counseling and various other screening procedures) is the best thing to do.

I still haven't watched Firefly

This week's topic is somewhat unfortunate for me because I have a fairly passive attitude about most passive media. I don't watch movies unless I'm forced to and though I enjoy television more, it's not by much. There are a lot of television series I like, and many I'll await seeing every week, there aren't a lot I feel passionate about. As far as shows that are currently on the air, I watch Glee, How I Met Your Mother, The Big Bang Theory, and The Glee Project.

As far as older shows that either I'm catching up on or I used to watch, there's Desperate Housewives and Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

Almost all of these fall more or less under the category of dramedy (though with The Big Bang Theory having admittedly little drama and Glee having an overabundance). I enjoy shows that can be serious and thought-provoking and also ridiculous at the same time. I think both Buffy and Desperate Housewives did that fantastically, with Buffy in particular keeping a light, humorous tone in the midst of very dark plots. I really appreciate shows that can play with that dynamic and feel comfortable at either side of the spectrum.

The main outlier is The Glee Project because I love singing contest shows and, liking Glee, I really enjoy their take on it. It's nice because it's a combination of the typical talent show like American Idol and the Big Brother-style "watch personalities interact" thing. It lets you get to know the contestants as performers and as characters and I really enjoy that.

So that said, do you guys have any recommendations of similar things I might like? I'm always looking for things to watch while I'm knitting. XP

I'm going to hell, aren't I?

As you may recall from my religion post (all the way back on week one), I struggled a lot with Christianity and how it related to the Bible. Basically, I decided that if the holy book of Christianity was the Bible, then I was going to follow everything in it to the best of my ability. The problem lay in the fact that I couldn't believe what the Bible told me to. I couldn't believe that Jesus was the only way to get to heaven. I believed (and still believe in) a lot of the moral teachings Jesus preached about loving your neighbor and not casting the first stone and removing planks from your own eye before the sawdust from your brother's (Jesus was a cool dude), but I couldn't just take the Bible at face value, even taking into account what may be metaphor. Because of this, I looked at various religions and eventually decided my answer was "none of the above."

That about sums up my last post on religion (it was very, very long, so if you haven't read it, I'm trying to make it so you don't have to). Of course, this seems to be fundamentally based on the idea that being a Christian requires believing everything in the Bible, and that's significantly because that is what I believe. This week's topic is traditionalism versus modernism in religion and I have to say I fall squarely into the traditionalism category. I believe if that something as important as a religion, something that wants to be the center of your life and values and judgments, is malleable, can change with interpretation and from person to person, then what does it mean? It's a very closed-minded view of things, I understand, but just...what's the point of having a holy book with teachings and beliefs if they aren't meant to be followed and...believed? Obviously, we can't know what God thinks about the Internet and that's something that would have to be interpreted, but as far as things that are explicitly in the Bible...I don't see how you can not believe it and then call yourself a Christian.

I just don't understand how the word has any value if it isn't consistent. I don't mind people that have views that differ from the Bible and still call themselves Christians but I just don't actually...I don't know. I can't consider you as such unless you are evangelizing the hell out of me, and if you are, then I probably won't want to talk to you.

I guess I just believe that if your religion is something you think is personal and between you and God, then that's fine. If you want to call that relationship Christianity, then I expect you to have certain beliefs that, frankly, most people don't have. If you think the only way to get to heaven is through belief in Jesus Christ, then you, as a Christian, should be perpetually terrified about all of the people in your life that are going to hell. I don't know anyone that can live life that way. I know I couldn't.

This post ended up being full of things that came off very offensively. Please understand that I do respect and love most of the people in my life that identify as Christian. I just have very strong opinions on religion that I don't like speaking about because I don't like offending people. I also know that this week's topic was on religion in general, but my perspective is limited mostly by my experiences with Christianity. In general, I believe that if you subscribe to a religion, then you have all of the beliefs that that religion entails. I don't believe in reinterpreting things to fit with today's moral values, because if the religion doesn't fit with today's moral values then maybe that's a problem with the religion. I don't believe you should have to fumble around awkwardly ignoring parts of your holy text just to make you feel comfortable like I did.

My definition is apparently 'Most things except for art'

I've always believed that art was something that made you feel emotions. Music is art. Books are art. Video games are art. Oddly, the only thing I was never sure was "art" under my definition is actual fine art like paintings and such.

So I guess the other thing about art is that it takes creativity to produce. Arithmetic is not art. Anyone could get that 2+2=4 (and anyone who doesn't is wrong), but developing a mathematical proof? That's art. That involves delicately weaving ideas through facts and melding assumptions and hypotheses into a unified concept, one that's solid and can stand the test of time. "Mathematics is the poetry of logical ideas."

Along this similar line, it's always baffled me how video games being art is even a debate. Even more so with the idea of "Can a video game make you cry?" Well duh it can. I can list 5 examples off the top of my head (Professor Layton, Crisis Core, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy VIII, Mother 3). Existentials are always really easy to prove. You just need one example and bam, the question of "Does a video game exist that can make you cry?" is proven true. Yes, there are some games that are very straight-forward (Move left, jump on baddies), and there are many, many games that involve characters with in-depth motivations and personalities going through an involved plot in a carefully constructed setting. I fail to see any difference between that and a novel, except for the beauty of interactivity allowing the player to contribute to shaping the story.

The fact is that fine art such as drawings and paintings and sculptures does require creativity. You have to take something from within yourself and shape it into something real and that makes it art. To be honest, though, it's never really called to me. My only reaction to museums has been an overwhelming desire to find where they're selling food and then to be offended by the exorbitant prices they're selling it for. I've been to a notable amount of art museums and I cannot tell you a single thing that has interested me. The only thing that even comes close is that one giant Lego city in that one dive bar in the Florida Keys. That was fascinating and engaging and told a story. Several stories, really, and one of which involved Harry Potter fighting Godzilla. To me, art needs to make me feel something, and even though a sculpture has never made me feel anything (aside from technically impressed), there are obviously people who feel that way. That is enough to make it art even if it isn't in my own personal little world.

In sum, I think pretty much anything can be art if it requires creativity and if it means things to people (preferably people other than the creator, but I guess not necessarily). I feel like programming is art. Not just design but taking characters and grouping them together into commands that, when compiled, produce an actual working application...that couldn't be more beautiful to me. Someone else might disagree, but I feel like the fact that anyone really believes that something is art means it is.

That said, where are my video game museums?

Learning is the point of life

I've always thought of the nature versus nurture debate as the extent to which parents can feel bad for the way they raised their kids. For example, I watched a video in my psychology class where parents of schizophrenics were told that schizophrenia very rarely linked to genetics and I could see their faces fall as they wondered if they did this to their children (I believe currently we believe that parental style has little bearing on whether or not a person will be schizophrenic, which just makes this cruel). Even though we're almost through this week now, I thought I'd clarify what I mean by nature and by nurture.

In my opinion, nature-based traits are ones that you are born with, things that are determined by your genetics before you have any outside influences. When you're a newborn, you're acting solely out of nature's influence. Nurture, on the other hand, is all the ways your environment influences you. Any behavioral reinforcement you've gotten, any learned behaviors are all nurture-based.

Now, when you think about it, life is all about being influenced by your environment. Most days you're on this Earth, you learn more things, have your behavior and your thinking shaped. You learn how to talk to people around you based on what works (and is responded to in a positive way, therefore reinforced) and what doesn't (and is responded to negatively, therefore punished), and you become a better conversationalist. From the day you were born, things that seem innate now, like walking and talking, were huge things you had to learn. I don't subscribe to the tabula rasa theory, which purports that all babies are blank slates, just waiting to learn, but I believe that most things are nurture-based. You may be more inclined to be shy, but if you're constantly thrust into the spotlight and have a positive experience of it, I believe you're more likely to develop outgoing characteristics.

If we're talking about which most influences personality, then we have to define personality. If you act differently toward your parents than toward your friends, does that make you two different people? Most people feel they have one unified personality and just show different sides of it to different groups, but if two traits conflict then what is our "real" personality? And what of flaws? If a person has anger-management issues that they learn to control, are they still short-tempered because that is their nature and something they have to actively control? Or have their conquered that flaw because now the personality they exhibit is calm and collected?

Personally, I think the idea that just because someone has to work at their flaws means they are always there is depressing. I believe that, in almost all ways, nurture overcomes nature. You may be more skilled or more happy or more comfortable when the two are in harmony, but if there is a conflict, I believe you will act in a way more attributable to the behaviors and thought processes you've learned throughout your life far more than what genetic disposition you may have been born with. Most people are out there today doing things we couldn't dream of doing as a baby and all of it feels so effortless. Things we learn have been so ingrained into our knowledge pool and our personality that it begins to feel innate. And personally, with all of the beautiful things in this world that can only exist because of learning, I think it's best that way.

4chan, on the other hand, is a completely different problem

When I think about things that bug me, many things come to mind: people who don't give straight answers, people who are indecisive, being purposefully vague, making shoddy arguments, people who'll lie to my face, 4chan...

But a lot of that just happens when I've been wronged. You want to know what I can't stand in a consistent manner that's plagued me since I was old enough to know what it was?

Grammar.

Grammar is wonderful. Grammar keeps words together and it makes them convey ideas. Grammar makes sentences clear and I'm going to list a few of the mistakes that drive me up the wall.

First off, less versus fewer. There are a lot of people that argue that this distinction is stupid, that there are no corresponding words for "more," and that the world hasn't fallen apart yet. I think these people are wrong. Let me point you to the sentence "There are more passionate people on the internet." I'm inclined to think it means more people who are passionate, but you really can't tell. Now let's try "There are fewer passionate people on the internet." Ah, there we go. We're clearly talking about the number of people. Clear. Concise. "There are less passionate people on the internet" talks about the overall level of passion. People on the internet are less passionate than people you find in real life. Still clear, but a completely different message.

The next thing that bothers me is elliptical clauses and how frequently they are misused. Elliptical clauses are clauses with an implied ellipsis (A series of three dots [...] is called an ellipsis, in case you didn't know). They're used in statements like "She's prettier than me," except that statement is wrong. She is pretty in a greater degree than...me. Her prettiness is greater than me. It's like trying to compare two completely different things. I'm not a level of attractiveness, so you can't compare them. You may think the meaning is still clear, but hold on. The correct thing to say is "She's prettier than I" because the implied ellipsis replaces the word "am." She's prettier than I [am].


This frequently is important in statements with objects. "He likes her more than me" means "He likes her more than [he likes] me," while "He likes her more than I" means "He likes her more than I [like her]." We can figure out where the rest of the sentence is if you put in the correct subject/object, but putting in the wrong one makes the sentence not actually make sense. In some situations, it's still clear, but in many, misusing this is conveying the completely incorrect message.


Another thing that drives me insane is phrases like "PIN number," "ATM machine" and "HIV virus." As I've said before, grammar is a tool that helps words convey information; the problem is that the information this conveys is that you don't know what you're saying, that you are ignorant of the words coming out of your mouth and what they mean, to the point where you don't understand that saying "Personal identification number number" is wrong. It makes it seem like you don't know what they stand for but you're saying them anyway, and that's terrible. You don't just start calling people loquacious before you know what the word means and you shouldn't say "ATM" without knowing it doesn't need to be followed by the word "machine."

In short, grammar is a tool that helps makes language understood and that makes it wonderful. Obviously, once you learn how to use a tool, you can start experimenting. The phrase "I don't sports" does not make grammatical sense, but effectively conveys your complete bewilderment by sports by implying you don't even know how to use the word. It conveys an idea and that's wonderful, but at the same time, you wouldn't want to throw out a phrase like that if you're teaching an ESOL class. The whole point of language is to convey ideas and when people don't do that clearly, it just infuriates me.

Which, now than I think about it, is exactly what bothers me about indecisiveness, being vague, lying, and, in a roundabout way, making shoddy arguments. Maybe it does tie together after all.

Fundamental Attribution Error

In psychology, there is an effect known as the fundamental attribution error. It's basically the thing that makes it so when you almost miss your exit and have to cut a few people off to get to the right lane, you know it was because you had the worst morning and nothing went right and you were going through your presentation for work and didn't realize your exit was coming up.

If someone else does it, well they should've been better prepared. They have to know they aren't the only ones on the road. You can't believe they'd be so self-centered and just plain stupid.

Obviously, we understand that our environment can affect us. We may snap at a friend because of a bad day at school and a friend can understand that. But that random lady at the store who just death glared at you the entire time you were trying to do your job? She's definitely a bitch. We don't take into account that maybe her environment or situation has caused her to be that way. We attribute other people's actions solely to their disposition or choices.

And I think the criminal justice system makes that mistake a lot. If you live in a terrible neighborhood and have to steal to get by, being locked up for a few years won't change that. You're still poor. You still have no skills (except whatever you used to break into people's houses). Sure, jail sucked, but you were fed and had clothing and were taken care of medically. Jail isn't supposed to be pleasant but it can't be a torture camp. As such, I find it hard to believe that there aren't people out there who prefer jail to their life outside bars. That is not an effective punishment, and the second they're out, people have little reason not to just go back to what they were doing. Even if they don't want to go back to jail, the mindset doesn't become "Don't steal," just "Don't get caught."

The fact is that punishment rarely changes behavior in a lasting fashion. If you scream at your kids every time they get lower than an A or you catch them doing something you don't like, they will stop showing you their report cards and start hiding more from you. Sure, if you put them on a tight leash, they may not have the opportunity to do much, but what happens when you go on a business trip? You haven't changed their attitudes, just their behaviors.

In the United States in 1994, recidivism rates for various types of thievery ranged from 70-79% Nearly 4/5 of people who were arrested for vehicle theft are arrested again within 3 years. That's not just the majority, but the majority by far. That's terrible.

Oddly enough, the same study says that the lowest rate of recidivism came from the categories of rape and homicide, coming in at 2.5% and 1.3%, respectively. These are crimes that the majority of people, including many of my co-bloggers, believe should be punished most severely with the least amount of rehabilitation. And I, for the most part, agree. I believe the relatively low recidivism rate probably has more to do with the long sentencing involved in these types of crimes and the fact that the study only included 3 years.

The fact is that in many cases, particularly those related to theft or drugs, I believe the environment is the problem, and sticking a person in very, very expensive incarceration (It's about $30,000 a year to house a single inmate), just delays the problem resurfacing. I'm not saying the person had to turn to crime; that was obviously their choice, but if they made that choice based on factors that haven't changed, what do you think they're going to do? If it were as simple as "Oh, I guess stealing is bad, I'll get a real job and contribute to society!" do you think they'd wait until after they had a criminal record? That just makes it harder. Rehabilitation in this case would make it so the person has job skills and is ready to re-enter society but with a positive goal in mind. It aims to make it so crime is neither necessary nor desired.

Punishment is supposed to be a deterrent, but if someone isn't deterred from doing it in the first place, it seems like the fear of going back rarely has them changing their behaviors. The fact is that incarceration isn't about the criminals. Sure, sending someone to jail will make the reality of what that means far more clear, but the goal of punishment is deterrence, so if they've gotten to jail, incarceration has already failed. I really think in the vast majority of non-violent cases, the goal should be making the criminal into a person that can contribute to society.

Anyway, that wraps it up for this week. Tomorrow will contain our normal topic announcement and also a special announcement of another kind...

See you all then. :)

"A bit" might be understating it

Hey guys, so I'm starting off this week of online education and I feel compelled to make one thing very clear: I'm going to be a bit biased. I like online education for a lot of reasons in theory, but in practice, it's always managed to injure me somehow.

Case 1: I failed English freshman year of high school and had to take it during the summer. I took it online and was totally unable to go on choir tour because this online class had in-person exams that had to be done in a very strict timeframe. I understand the reasoning behind making sure the person taking the class is the person who's getting credit for it, but this is still stupid. High school English is stupid.

Case 2: Despite what that last paragraph implied, I actually get really good grades. I completed my AS in Computer Science with a 3.8 and had a 4.0 at my previous university. That said, the lowest grade I've ever gotten in a college class was online. Usually, when a teacher assigns readings, I blow them off. They don't really expect you to know it, they just expect you to have a base knowledge so you'll know what they're talking about when they go over it in class. I pick up things pretty quickly so I don't bother. I listen and I pay attention and I absorb information and I learn. For this class, there were obviously no lectures, just reading assignments, so I did them. I read that entire textbook basically from start to finish, and not even just skimming it. I discussed it with friends. I took notes. I wrote papers. I did the assignments. I put up with a group project. I studied.

And I got a C. I've gotten poor grades before in classes (poor like Bs) because I didn't do the work, but it worked well in college because exams were usually weighted higher and I did well on those. But this class? I did the work, but according to the statistics she sent out, I was in the 25th percentile of exam grades. It wasn't that the class was hard, it was that I sucked at it. Keep in mind that this is a psychology class and psych is one of my favorite subjects. It's not like I had a hard time understanding the material; it's not like I didn't do the work; it's not like it was an objectively hard class; I just did terribly.

And my only explanation for that is that the class was online, and I think that highlights a few major flaws with the idea.

1) The lack of teacher-student feedback. Now, I've had online classes (I took 3 last semester) where the professor gave thorough feedback on everything I turned in, or at least everything where points were taken off, but more often than not, that's not the case. In another class I took last semester, I got literally no feedback on anything. I did the assignments on my own time; they were graded at some point in the future; and my grade was literally my only feedback. B+.

Why was it not an A? I don't know. I don't know what I did wrong or what I could've done to fix it. Now, this isn't a problem so much innately with the system as with the professors but the main problem is that even if they give feedback, I have to seek it out. I have to go back to my assignments and stalk them every day until they're graded and hope there are comments there. This makes actually figuring out what the professor wants and improving on it a much more difficult task, especially when...

2) The assignments tend to be all the same. This is definitely a limitation of online software. If you have students in a room together, you can do all sorts of activities. Show a movie; play a game; draw pictures; call on students to explain; have people ask questions; put people in small groups; make a diorama; pretty much anything.

Online? Your choices are mostly read this article; read the textbook; watch this video; write a paper; take a quiz; or complete a worksheet. I've also been asked to listen to music clips but that was a music class and not really relevant in a broad sense. And this is the problem, because if you don't know how to write a paper like your professor wants, she can't write in the margins revising notes. You just get 15/20 and have no idea why. And then you get 15/20 for every other assignment because they're all essays. But I know the main problem, at least for me, is that...

3) There is no room for incorporating other learning styles. When I first signed up for online classes, I had to complete some sort of online course readiness test that asked me about a bunch of relevant things. It asked me about my computer skills, my typing speed, my reading speed, my computer specs, my work-ethic, my degree of self-motivation, etc. You know what it really didn't ask me? If I learn well in a text-only environment. Yes, it was sort of my bad to pick 3 online classes in a semester when I hadn't taken one before, but all signs pointed to "Ooh, I'm self-motivated and love setting schedules for myself. I'll be the best online student ever!"

And that just wasn't true. Like I sort of mentioned before, I work really well in a format that involves discussion. I talk through things to understand them (which I tried to do by commenting on the textbook to my friends), but that dialogue between professor and student is really important to my learning. Without having a single lecture or, honestly, a single word actually written by the professor for the class (All of those powerpoints had different people's names on them...), you might as well have just given me the textbook and the final exam. That is not how I learn. I tried. I really tried, but consistently, my exam grades were lower in my online classes than they've ever been via traditional methods.Not to mention, I don't really remember anything of what I learned. I mean, I didn't know it then, so there's no reason I'd know it now, but isn't that sort of a problem? Honestly, I really think that's because in person, you can incorporate all sorts of different learning styles, but online, unless you're doing video conferencing, there's really only one. And the idea of video conferencing leads me to my next point:

4) Setting up a universal schedule is impossible, or at least highly inconvenient. Some of the main reasons people take online classes is because they work during the day or they travel between two homes or they have children, which sums up to one thing: their schedules are severely limited and they need something flexible to work around it. This means a few things. First, it's really hard to coordinate for a group project. Second, you can't set exam dates that aren't windows and you certainly can't set a location. Maybe they don't think this is a problem for high schoolers taking freshman English, but I could have been busy (and would have been). The same system is in place for seniors who might have jobs or siblings they need to take care of. I've had professors say all assignments are due Sunday night only to assign something due Friday that I never looked at because I was busy during the week. This lack of touching base is something that's hard to work around. It's hard to say things and not know when people are going to check it, which is why it's an even bigger problem that...

5) Some professors still aren't accessible. Again, this is a problem with the professor and not the concept, but it's still something I've run into. One professor in particular comes to mind as being completely inaccessible 3/7 days of the week. Specifically, Friday-Sunday, aka "The time everyone is done doing their weekday stuff and has time to work on online classes." Again, with flexible schedules, obviously some people were working before then, but I think the amount of people who do most of their work for online classes during the weekend comprises the majority. This is one thing if you have physical classes where you see students every other day and are always available at some time convenient for both of you (i.e., during class), but online? You need to be available. Obviously, no one expects a response within 10 minutes (and you shouldn't be asking questions about your assignments that soon before they're due), but you can't block off 3 days where people need you the most.

A lot of these gripes and examples are personal, and I hope they aren't all universal, but I think it does say something about online education: the way it's being implemented presently falls short of what a traditional classroom can offer. Traditional classrooms give you varied assignments and teaching styles along with an actual relationship with your professor. You can ask your professor a question and get immediate feedback that can incorporate drawings and other media and doesn't rely on text alone. You can interact with other students in a way that can actually help your education (e.g., "Wait, so we're doing what on this assignment?") rather than only because you were assigned a group project and you have to talk to these people whose names you won't remember next week. Online education can be an option but I really don't think it's the best way to retain the most information. It's just too limited as it exists now.

I saw a deer today

When I think of violence in media, first off, I think of video games, because I work in a video game store and I'm required, legally, to have an adult's consent when selling rated M games to minors, and that happens a lot.

As I've mentioned before, I have a bit of a video-game-related bent on things so I might as well start there. Now, I've occasionally wondered why almost every game has combat as a core mechanic. I mean, there are exceptions that rely on escape or maybe running wind into flowers to grab petals, but for the most part, combat is a core mechanic, and something most games are judged on as much as (or more than) they're judged on aesthetic or writing.

I would watch that for a minute or so and then leave it playing while you read the rest of this entry. It's really a beautiful game.

So then are people really being desensitized to violence because of video games? Well, maybe. It's certainly expected of us in video games, and there's definitely a satisfaction to absolutely slaughtering someone. A lot of games display this moderately realistically (though usually with a bit more spectacle) with people emitting blood when they die as most people would if you slashed them with a sword. But what does that really mean? Does it mean I'm going to go out, buy a sword, and kill someone with it because I saw it on Skyrim? Obviously not. Killing people is wrong. Being desensitized to violence doesn't suddenly make you into a sociopath. I would never hurt another living being. That said, these Falmer on the other hand totally deserve it.

There are at least a couple professions I can think of that require desensitization to violence and those are military and medicine. You have to be able to stay calm under situations that would reduce some people to hysterical messes. You don't want your doctor saying "Oh god, so much blood." when you enter the ER. You want your doctor to calmly explain to you what's wrong and what can be done to fix it. I think the military actually uses video games and other simulations (that are probably not so different from Call of Duty) to purposefully desensitize people to violence. So what exactly are we worrying about?

Are we worrying that people not being emotionally traumatized by violence might make them aggressive? Well, personally, I think if it would, then you're too young to be playing these types of games. I strongly believe in the ESRB and it's rating system, and I have talked to parents and convinced them not to buy games for their young children. Of course I've had parents to say "Well, if I didn't buy it, they'd just play it at Jimmy's house" or "Yeah, that's fine, I don't care," and both of them are sad, but I've also had parents say "Let's go look for a game rated T" or "My daughter is a mature young woman and I trust her to make the right decisions regarding the games she plays," both of which are wonderful reactions. Like I said, even if I am desensitized to violence, that doesn't erase my concepts of right and wrong. At worst, it'll cause me to react less emotionally if I'm ever in a violent situation.

That said, I'm not 100% sure that the games I play are really enough to desensitize me to much. I don't really play shooters or games that use gore as a spectacle (I'm looking at you, Mortal Kombat), so the over-the-top intense violence rarely enters my PC and/or console. That said, Skyrim is a pretty bloody game. Not only did you kill a lot of things, but there were multiple instances of seeing bloody skeletons and corpses and sometimes their flesh was implied to be eaten. It was a really gross game at times, and the first several times I saw human bones covered in blood (or was it leftover muscle tissue?)  my stomach turned. That said, as the game went on, they showed up a bunch and eventually I stopped caring.

A few days later I was driving to a friend's house and I saw a deer on the side of the road. I was driving on a gravel road at the time, the kind that doesn't often get cleared of roadkill and this was particular deer was dead and highly decomposed. I've tried to block out the details, but this was every bit as bad as those skeletons in Skyrim, except this was in real life. I remember being really shaken and disturbed and honestly a little distracted on the rest of the drive.

There is a huge difference between being desensitized to textures on a wireframe model than being desensitized to real life that's happening in front of you, and I honestly think if the deer hadn't disturbed me as much as it did, I probably would've been driving more safely. It's hard to find good research about this issue for several reasons. First, the media loves any conclusion that could cause an upset. That's why you have to tune in at 11 to find out if wearing high heels will cause you to get cancer. Second, people are terribly biased. When I was doing research for this post, I came across this article and there was a point where one of the scientists behind the study said "Surprisingly, the amygdalas in the subjects as well as in the control group were similarly stimulated." Were they expecting the people who played video games to not react at all? Did they expect sociopaths with no reaction to other humans in pain? Video games are such a maligned form of media that people like to blame them for society's woes. Because of that, I really think that unbiased science is going to be hard to come by. People are going to be looking to either valiantly defend the world from video games or valiantly defend video games from the world and there is no valor in science (there is, however, science in science, and that's much more cool to focus on).

In short, I don't think desensitization is an innately bad thing; I don't think video games desensitize (at least not me personally), and if you play video games and now want to shoot people, you need to tell your mother and get some professional help.

And Hayley Williams is my effing idol

As I mentioned in my post on religion, music has pretty much always been a big part of my life. I live with depression and honestly, I'm not sure where I'd be without music in my life. A major part of my depression, at least, is feeling melancholic and like the weight of unresolved emotions is just pulling me down, and one of the most important skills I had to learn was how to try to dissipate some of that weight. Listening to music has always been one of the best ways to do this. If I hear a song and it resonates with me, I can identify some of the unspecified blobs of emotion, and if I can identify it, I can usually scream out the lyrics and cry and feel a bit better. The idea of musicians putting emotions into lyrics I can hold onto for support is something that I've honestly been eternally grateful for. This is why, in a lot of my personal blog posts, I'll punctuate paragraphs with lyrics. I understand that this is pretty much a stereotype of self-absorbed emo kids, but the way the lyrics resonate with me makes me feel like I could never express how I feel as well as that one line did. If that makes me emo, then I'm fine with that.

I could talk about the other ways music is important to me, or the ways it's influenced my life, but that honestly doesn't sound very fun to talk about or to read, so onto the meat of the post: music itself.

Obviously, not all music has to invoke emotional epiphanies. Some are just fun. To that end, I wholeheartedly recommend Ke$ha. Her combination of the vulgar and the trashy with the upbeat and the catchy is really disturbing at first glance, but if you can get past judging yourself for enjoying it, it's usually ridiculously fun. Pendleton has some valid reservations about auto-tuning, but I honestly find it a tool that can be used to great effect. An artist doesn't need to be a virtuoso to be worth listening to. Most of my recommendations are going to be based on my iTunes play count, so according to it, my favorite Ke$ha song is Grow A Pear. It's fun and shallow and meaningless that has been made infinitely better by evoking a mental image of hardcore gardening.

Favorite lyrics: But you cried 'bout this and whine about that. When you grow a pear, you can call me back.

No post about my taste emotional lyrics could be complete without a few requisite Taylor Swift lyrics, and I'm quite fine with that. She has a fantastic ability to write songs that are both specific enough to feel personalized while general enough to relate to. Yes, pretty much all of her songs are about love (either gained or lost) but she does what she does well. She also has plenty of songs about anger and revenge and there is nothing wrong with empathizing with those a little too much (better than actually being vengeful and vindictive).

Favorite lyrics: And she is yelling at a bridesmaid somewhere back inside a room wearing a gown shaped like a pastry.

The rest I'm going to sort of group together (probably unfairly): my assortment of pop punk bands with guy lead singers. This includes Forever The Sickest Kids, All Time Low, Mayday Parade, The Maine, The Cab and Every Avenue, just to name a few. Their songs vary wildly between heartrending sob stories (more like Mayday Parade) and shallow, Ke$ha-rivaling dance music (more like Forever The Sickest Kids), but I tend to group them together because 1) people who hate one usually hate most of them, and 2) though I have my favorites, few stand out as having a unique sound.

(Exceptions include Hit The Lights first two albums and Cute Is What We Aim For's first album. Hit The Lights because 100% of their songs are in some way angry, generally violently so, and CIWWAF for being very overtly sexual and sensual.)

That said, this particular brand of music has been labeled Kelsey music and, in general, tends to make me very happy. Since this has so many artists in it, I'm going to pick a few favorite lyrics from a few different points on the spectrum

Favorite lyrics: I'll have you know I'm scared to death that everything that you had said to me was just a lie until you left.


What am I supposed to do (oh oh) when she's so damn cold like 20 below?


I want the good life, spotlights fortune and fame. Make me rich, can't be poor, can't be broke anymore.


She'd sink lower than a body in the Hudson could ever do.


You got in my heart, you got in my head, and I believed everything you said

Rise Against gets onto another honorable mentions list with my post. I really like their sound and usually their lyrics are thought-provoking, but I don't have enough of a connection with them to really put them on my main list. Other honorable mentions are My Chemical Romance and Escape the Fate for pretty much the same reasoning.

Favorite lyrics: We've all been sorry, we've all been hurt, but how we survive is what makes us who we are.


You are so beautiful, you are the kind of girl who has the chemicals to make me fall in love


But you really need to listen to me, because I'm telling you the truth, I mean this, I'm okay (trust me)

You think YOU'RE idealistic?

A lot of the posts this week have focused on money. Teacher's salaries and tuition are both very important things, but there's another crucial component to education: the student.

As you may have seen on the About Us page, I'm studying to become a game developer. This gives me an interesting view of things because when I learn things, I tend to tie it back to "How can I use this to make more awesome games?" When it comes to education, though, it's the other way around. Games can make education more awesome.

Video games have gotten fantastic at the psychology of play, trying to get the gamer to do something continually for months on end. Pay-to-play online games need this principle to survive. If you don't like the game, you stop paying them for it and they stop making money off of you. Games have perfected many psychological tricks such as skinner boxes and reinforcement schedules to make games rewarding for the player. I think the real challenge for video gaming is to use those techniques to do some good in the real world and I think that starts with education.

The first thing I'm going to talk about is Alternate Reality Games. The basic premise of an ARG is that it's a game, usually on a website, that implies that there's more to this world than we know, a secret that's just dying to get out, and you're the one it needs to be told to. There might be numbers at the bottom of a webpage that, when translated from binary to ASCII, code for a URL. Going to that URL might show you a countdown. You don't know what the countdown is for, but you figure out that it's for a couple days from now at 2PM. At around 2:10, you check the website again and find that the "government" has taken it down, but wait. In the source code, you find a comment that says the truth will be revealed and has a ten-digit number. You call that number and a recorded voice tells you they need your help decrypting a signal and...Well, I'm sure you get the point. It's exciting and makes you want to find out more. Perhaps more excitingly, with the combined power of the internet, codes way more complicated than converting binary to text could be cracked.

This has huge applications in education. What if, instead of having to write a paper on the Renaissance, you had to crack codes based on important historic facts? What if there's a secret hidden in history that you can only figure out by researching? The best part is that this doesn't even really rely on extrinsic motivators. The most powerful draw to this idea is the fact that figuring out stuff and feeling smart is awesome. Every time you enter the right password (which would hopefully be more interesting than "Name Henry VIII's fourth wife"), you get that rush of endorphins. That high that says you won. It'd give a sort of instant gratification that's rarely there in most school assignments. It would reinforce the idea that learning stuff for learning's sake can be awesome. Yeah, it would be for a grade, but once you got into it, it would be so much more than that.

Another game-related idea that I think could be implemented is a little more cheap: competition. Qwizdom is the first thing that comes to mind of this sort of thing already in action. The basic idea is that you get controllers for each of your students and program in the questions. After that, there are a bunch of pre-programmed games that the students can play. Maybe it's a racing game where the faster you put in the right answer, the faster your car can go. Maybe it's just as simple as grouping people into teams and playing Jeopardy in the classroom. Either way, the result is that kids have more fun and they have more of a desire to do well.

Or maybe you could have a review website where you upload homework assignments. Maybe you only assign 15 math problems out of the book, but you add in a bunch more from the same chapter. Maybe you even add in some for later chapters, but the key is that for every question they answer, there's a 10% chance they'll get a coin. Coins accumulate throughout the year and they can be redeemed for things like homework passes or extra points on an exam. They could even been redeemed for physical items like school supplies or maybe candy. I know I'd spend more time on assignments if going beyond the minimum actually had some sort of tangible (or at least measurable) reward.

There are a lot of things wrong with education today, but I think one of the main ones is focusing on creating a minimum knowledge base instead of focusing on cultivating a desire to learn. As a great philosopher once said "All the fun parts of life are optional." Teaching shouldn't be about getting you to memorize facts. It should be about getting you to go beyond and to realize what kind of awesome stuff lies out there if you have the motivation and intelligence to reach for it.

For more information on ARGs, feel free to watch Extra Credits' episode on the whole deal, which I admittedly stole a lot of the optimism from.

That is normal, right?

So I'm the younger of my parents' two children. I have a older brother and, for the most part, the way we interacted in childhood was pretty normal. I would hide his stuff and get him in trouble for losing it and he'd try to cut off my extremities, shove me down the stairs, and sing The Way by Fastball in my general direction. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the last one is the one that traumatized me the most. I hate that song.

My brother was always the one that had to have the biggest new TV or the surroundiest new sound system or the shiniest new console, while I was always pretty content with a hand-me-down computer and access to the internet. The laptop I'm typing on now is actually the first computer I've ever had that was bought specifically for me (and it's refurbished so I'm still not the first one to own it). My brother always seemed to take up most of the Christmas budget, so I sort of took it on myself to be less demanding. I saved up more money so I could buy my own things (ah, Pokemon Silver release day. I still remember you fondly), and I know I lent money to my brother on more than one occasion. It seems a little counter-intuitive from the typical younger sibling stereotype, but it makes sense with how my childhood happened. I've always been ridiculously frugal, and birth order probably had to do with why.

My brother on the other hand, never really seemed to fit into the archetype of older brother. He was never responsible (even when I wasn't hiding his things), and continued to set a low bar that was pretty easy for me to clear. I remember a few times where the two of us were left alone in the house and I was the one in charge of watching over him. He moved out when he was 15 (I was 11) to live with our grandparents, and continued to make poor decisions in Michigan. His grades weren't great, and, most spectacularly, he got his girlfriend pregnant, twice. I never felt much pressure to be better than he was because I figured if I didn't get pregnant by the age of 17 (which I did not), I pretty much won. 

This put me in an odd position. I was a younger sibling, technically, but as far as my parents were concerned, I was really the only one they had to take care of. My mom says that she was never concerned for my grades or my success as much as she was for my well-being and that I didn't need parenting as much as I needed hugs. I guess I spent so much time not being the problem child that I learned how to fend for myself. I generally came home to an empty house so I had to become pretty self-sufficient and responsible in ways my brother still hasn't gotten the hang of.

I do think the part you play when growing up makes a big difference in who you end up being, but I think that birth order isn't always the only thing that determines your role. I almost wonder if it's not who's born first but who gets the most attention that determines the kind of traits you end up with. I mean, I generally get along better with older siblings and I think a lot of that comes from that idea of having to look out for yourself and the other kids around you. Either way, I think I turned out alright.

Cognitive Dissonance

When I was younger, religion was a huge part of my life. Church every Sunday, rain, shine, sick, well, whatever. It was the hardest thing because I wasn't allowed to play Pokemon in church. And I had to get up early. Why did I have to get up early on a day of rest?

But that aside, it actually was an important factor in my life. When I was maybe in 4th grade, we were learning about the solar system, and I was terrified that the sun was going to spontaneously turn into a black hole and we'd all be dead. I lost a lot of sleep over this and I remember praying to God to keep me and my family safe. I remember the immense amount of comfort I got from that, knowing there was a god that loved and cared about us, that listened to our prayers.

In fact, at the age of 12 or so, it was one of 6 adjectives I used to describe myself: Religious. As I got older, I loved being part of mission projects, and most importantly, choir. Choir every Sunday morning and choir tour every summer were the best parts of my religious life. We went to a contemporary Methodist service and the songs were fun. The sermons were boring, but the songs were fun.

To be honest, I don't remember when it started to change, really. I think it might've been when the church installed a new $10,000 electronic sign outside, but I remember not really liking how the church was run. I didn't like how the Bible said that non-Christians went to hell. What about all of the people in India who just never had a chance to choose Christianity? What about children who weren't baptized? What about my Muslim friends? My Jewish friends?

I quietly revised my definition of what it meant to be a Christian and moved on, but that didn't sit well with me. Why would the Bible say that? Why would the Bible say that the only way to get to heaven is through Jesus? Especially if it weren't? What if you're a fantastically good person who's dedicated your life to helping people? Why would that person go to hell? The Bible says it's because we've all sinned and fall short of the glory of God but...why isn't really trying (and repenting when you fail) enough?

So I started skipping Sunday School after the service. I started meeting my friend in the stairwells and reading the Bible ourselves.

Well, in theory, anyway. It never worked out that way, but I always tried to read it at home. First, I started with Genesis but that was all family trees and boring crap. Then I started with the gospels but...I don't know. I got bored? Went back to Genesis and got up through Leviticus, I think. There are some fun stories in there. Sodom and Gomorrah is a riot and that whole bit about Abraham saying Sarah was his sister? Hilarious.

But anyway, it was at that point I decided to start trying to follow the rules in the Bible. They were right there, in the holy book, so I was going to follow them. It didn't make sense for them to be part of the Bible if we were going to ignore it, right? So I went kosher, which wasn't a big deal for me except I had to give up Pizza Rolls (which was the hardest decision of my life). I honestly didn't know much but I tried to follow what I could. I tried not to pick and choose what was convenient. I tried to actually live by what the Bible said but...that whole bit about sending good people to hell still didn't sit right with me. Eventually, I went through confirmation and I remember that being such a peaceful weekend. I was constantly surrounded by people saying "No, don't worry, this is how it is. You don't need to think too hard about it, just believe and that's enough." It was calming. It made it easy to just go along with it. It wasn't until after confirmation, when that nagging feeling came back that I felt I had to do something about it. I looked into other religions. Judaism was closest to what I was practicing: Be a good person, follow the rules. I was dating (sort of?) a Muslim at the time, so I looked into Islam too. Interesting religion, that. Honestly though, the thing that really kept me from converting was the services. The contemporary service, the songs, that all felt comfortable to me. It felt fun and welcoming.

And then I thought, "Am I really a Christian because I like the songs?"

That disturbed me, but I tried to put it out of my head. I tried to figure out what I believed. At one point, I tried a mix-and-match thing, picking out the beliefs I liked and rejecting the ones I didn't, but that always felt fake to me. If the Bible said that Jews go to hell and Christianity follows the Bible, then how am I a Christian if I don't believe that?

Then in 2008, Cute Is What We Aim For released their album Rotation. Track 4 was a simple song called Loser. The first verse (and bridge) went like this:

I've read of a man up in a room 
Who can control everything I do 
But what do I know? 
What do I know? 
And if the story of the man isn't true 
Then tell me what I should do 
Should I take off the blindfold? 
Or do what I'm told? 


But we'll never know about the life I chose 
I won't believe I won't be so naive until I go 
Yeah we'll never know 'til these eyes close

And it sounds superficial, but that song gave me the idea: What if there isn't a god? It was a simple idea and one I'd never thought of before, but as soon as I gave it a chance, all of the pieces fell into place. I'd figured out that there was so much nagging at me I didn't even know about.

I thought about how prayer never made sense to me. If God were omniscient...then shouldn't he know every argument you could possibly have against him? Shouldn't he have it all under consideration? And if he had a plan for all of us, then...why were we praying about Susie's cancer? If logic can't change his plan then...what? Do we need to get as many people to pray as possible because there's a quota you need to meet? 100 people and Susie's cancer goes into remission, any less and it metastasizes? I never understood what made prayer matter if God knew us before we were born, who we would be and what we would become. If he were going to help us, wouldn't he just do so?

And why was God so active in Biblical times, talking to people, burning bushes, causing floods, but not at all now? Why didn't he pick a prophet every hundred years or so to guide his flock? Why didn't he make it easy to believe and make the challenge to be a good person?

And there's been religion throughout all of history and we've consistently looked back and said "Ha ha, those guys were idiots. Thinking a guy in a chariot pulled the sun across the sky, what silly people," and then held our own religious beliefs...wasn't it kind of...proud? To think that people wouldn't look back in a thousand years and do the same thing to us?

And this is big, why is there no proof? Why is there no statistical proof that prayer helps aside from the general help that having a loving, supporting family provides? Why can't you find anything other than anecdotal evidence about Christians having miracles happen to them? If God is affecting our world, there should be proof. We can study everything in this world, but does God just refuse to participate in science? It seems rather unsportsmanlike, like he thinks we're cheating. I never understood why faith had to be so hard, why there wasn't any proof on our side.

But thinking he didn't exist (or at least not the active, involved God the Bible describes), that made sense. The nagging feeling went away. Everything fell into place and started to make sense. We had enough science to explain how people came to be. With the sheer size of the universe, it makes sense that somewhere, conditions would be right for life to evolve like this. Given infinite chances, things of all probabilities are possible. The more I thought about it, the more it became clear to me that I didn't need a god to make sense of the world. Sure, I didn't understand where the first matter or energy came from, but I didn't understand where God came from either, so it seemed like a fair trade. There weren't any holes in my understanding of the world that needed a god to be filled, and trying to shoehorn him in where he wasn't necessary caused so much stress.

Of course, I never had anything against the deist theory of God as a master clockmaker who set the universe in motion and then went off to...make other clocks, I guess, but it seemed like an unnecessary complication. If God exists, it should be provable. He could just make a loud pronouncement from the heavens and let us know "Yo, guys, still here. You might want to clean up your act a bit." I think he'd be really pleased with the results. But you can't prove that he doesn't exist any more than you can prove there isn't an invisible pink unicorn somewhere in space. If you can prove something but can't disprove it, then I don't understand why I should give equal weight to each idea, not if there is literally no way to discredit your idea.

But this wasn't a decision I made lightly. I didn't go "Aha! You silly peons still believe this while I see the truth!" To be honest, I don't like talking about my opinions on religion because I don't want to come off that way (And believe me, I talk about everything, at length). It's hard to say "I believe differently than you and here are my reasons why" without it coming off as "And you're stupid for disagreeing," especially with things like this. I didn't really talk about it when it happened and I think this is the first time I've really told anyone the full story (so enjoy, internet). The fact is that it pained me because there were so many things that were so comforting about religion that I wanted back. I wanted to believe in an afterlife. I wanted to believe that somewhere, Biscuit was still happy and healthy. I wanted to believe that I'd be reunited with my loved ones in a place of eternal happiness, but I just...can't. Religion nagged and nagged at me until I realized it wasn't something I could be a part of anymore. To be honest, when my cat died in 11th grade, I didn't think I'd ever stop crying. I didn't know how to deal with the fact that he was just...gone. Never coming back. Never see him again. That was it. Gone. Dead. Forever.

And I don't know how I'm going to be able to deal with that if someone close to me dies. Them not being there anymore. Not ever. I don't...I really don't know how to deal with it. I'm not saying this to ask for pity but just...I never hated religion.

Well, except for that one time it made me feel immensely guilty for my magic spell book (that was pink revolved around rose petals and fingernail polish). To be honest, I still feel resentment for that. Stupid Christianity and it's stupid rules about witchcraft.

But seriously, I never hated religion and I still don't. It was an important part of my childhood and a really positive influence, for the most part. I don't blame people for believing differently than I do and I just ask that people not judge me for not being able to believe what they do. Believe me, I tried, but after years of discomfort and confusion, I finally found what made sense to me, what I was comfortable with, and I feel better for it.

That said, I really don't like people who talk about "atheism," like it's a religion. I don't believe god exists, but I don't have any dogmatic attachment to the idea. I believe in science, in evolution, that the earth was once a ridiculously hot singular land mass with no atmospheric oxygen and that life evolved from prokaryotic cells. My beliefs don't include a god but neither are they about not having one. I consider myself an atheist if you want to talk about religious beliefs, but it's really more that I don't have any than that mine revolve around denying god's existence. I'm an atheist, but I'm not a "follower of atheism," because that doesn't make any sense. If there were proof of god, I'd be all for it, but in the absence of such things, I don't see any reason to include him in my views of the world.

Though just in case there is a god, I fully believe that if he's a god worth worshipping, he should accept me by the good life I've tried to live, rather than by strict adherence to whatever holy book is most prominent in my area, so I think I've got all my bases covered.