![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
moominmuppetOK, this isn't quite so crucial as my last post, but my homework website is down!
I had a fabulous time in class last night, and came in this morning looking forward to playing on the homework website some more (I use the self-quizzes as my form of Solitaire), and also finishing up my assignment for this week, but it's pulling up a 404 error, and their tech support line is closed until 9am, my time. *grump*
I love doing dissections. Really, really, really love it. As a kid, if I could've vivisected myself and gotten me all back together again, I'd've done it in a heartbeat (as one might suspect, I'm also very bad about playing with my own injuries). It goes to the core of my biogeekiness, and some of my fondest memories from childhood are of my first dissections (a sheep's heart, sheep's brain, and cow eye, during a summer program in elementary school -- I remember being especially amazed by the lens from the cow eye; I was so sad when it finally dried out and I couldn't play with it anymore). I also did dissections in 5th grade Anat and Phys (during my two years at a kickass private school), 9th grade bio, 11th grade zoology, and college bio lab. I haven't done any since then. Unsurprisingly, I do intend to let other people play with my body when I die, too.
This doesn't mean that it's not sometimes a difficult issue for me emotionally and ethically. I'm not particularly sentimental about dead bodies, human or animal, but I dislike waste of life. I have a hard time with anything that involves pithing frogs, and some difficulty with dissection of animals that wouldn't already be dead if it weren't for the dissection (like frogs, for example). And even though I know that not dissecting cats isn't going to prevent them from being euthanized, due to the massive overpopulation probs, it's still got an emotional tinge that's a bit rough. So, I'm really pleased that for lab (where we're finally doing lab work) we're dissecting fetal pigs. Because I'm an omnivore, and they're a biproduct of the meat industry, I have no problem at all dissecting them, and just get to enjoy the fascination of it.
I was really bummed to miss last class, when we started this dissection, so this class, I picked up with my normal lab group, who were perfectly happy to let me take the lead, and do all the poking and pointing and explaining for this class. And it feels really good to be doing something that I'm very good at (can't sing, can't dance, can't juggle, can find a gallbladder, can explain bio concepts clearly). I just wish we were spending more time on it. Apparently for the moment we're just doing these two sessions, although we may return to fetal pigs later in the semester for some of the other systems.
Anyway, so class was everything I like -- finding cool things, exploring cool things, explaining cool things (there's an overlap with patient-instructing there; I love teaching people anatomy, no matter whose anatomy it is). And apparently I have another study partner; one of the girls I was working with in lab asked to exchange numbers so we can study together before the upcoming exam. I'm really pleased about that; I like working with other people, and I like the teaching aspect of working with someone who's having a rougher time with the material than I am.
It's interesting; this class is good for my mood and self-esteem in much the same way patient-instructing is; it's the combination of feeling both competent and useful. And until folks started asking to work/study with me, it was just the former, and not so much the latter, so I'm psyched about the change. It also pushes me to work harder, since it means it's especially important to me to get the material right, and not be guilty of passing along incorrect info (one of the things I have a big bugaboo about -- it matters a lot to me to be a trustworthy source of information). And I do hope all that comes across as joy, and not arrogance. Interestingly, that topic actually came up with my coworker, while we were talking at the bus stop yesterday -- I don't remember how the conversation started, but she commented about the role I play in the office (I'm "answer-girl" for both work-related and non-work-related weird queries -- I know weird shit, and I'm good at researching weird shit that I don't know), and we were talking about how that's really one of my primary strengths and pleasures (it was a lot of why I loved Quiz Bowl in high school, even). That's very, very true. I'd say it goes to the core of most of how I organize the work I do in the world. I'm happiest when I'm functioning as a resource for people, whether it's about sexual health info, anat and phys material, correct support routing for Bluezone FTP probs, or who to contact to report low water levels in a local lake.
When I'm depressed, and my self-confidence is low, it really takes that away from me; I become convinced that I'm somehow providing flawed information, and self-doubt starts to muzzle me. And, without that central positive aspect of how I normally interact with the world, I get more depressed, and so on.
On the flip side, though, "providing accurate information" is so ingrained into me that it sometimes messes with my ability to talk about my own emotions and feelings. I feel like I become unreliable when I speak about them, due to the nature of their changeability, and my own perspective shifts (made even more dramatic by the bipolar), and I have a hard time accepting that. In fact, some part of my brain is certain that if I am unreliable in that way, then people will start to consider me "untrustworthy" in more objective arenas (which is pretty stupid, I realize, but I've seen that thought pattern in my brain repeatedly, nonetheless). Also, all this obsession with accurate information makes being politically and socially activist pretty tricky, too. I get very angry at myself if I feel like I'm passing along or participating in obfuscation of the actual situation. And I get infuriated at my own parties and groups when they do that sort of thing (which most are guilty of sooner or later, and mostly sooner). It's not that I think I'm objective -- I have more than enough opinions and perspectives on the world. It's that I place a very high value on using honest material to back those up, and I that believe in being clear when I'm expressing opinion vs stating facts. And realistically, I think it's a better tactic in the long-run, too. Becoming known as a source of inaccurate material isn't the way to convince anyone of anything.
In an ideal world, I want to be a trustworthy person -- someone people can expect to say "I don't know, I'll research it" rather than pulling shit out of my ass, and someone who will acknowledge data points that support the "other side" even if they're less than comfortable. That's what I work toward.
Unsurprisingly, I'm exceedingly fond of Snopes, FactCheck, and debunking of almost any sort (although my fondness for Penn and Teller's Bullshit has been slipping since I've found them using questionable data without full disclosure on the sources/slants on some of the issues). And I think I get more angry at the antis in front of the clinic for disseminating inaccurate information (like the debunked breast cancer/abortion link) than for anything else. If you have to lie to convince people of an issue, your position isn't strong enough (this has lead to me dissociating myself from some activist organizations over the years, actually -- it's a tactic that's guaranteed to alienate me).
Huh. That turned into a much longer pondering than I expected.
I had a fabulous time in class last night, and came in this morning looking forward to playing on the homework website some more (I use the self-quizzes as my form of Solitaire), and also finishing up my assignment for this week, but it's pulling up a 404 error, and their tech support line is closed until 9am, my time. *grump*
I love doing dissections. Really, really, really love it. As a kid, if I could've vivisected myself and gotten me all back together again, I'd've done it in a heartbeat (as one might suspect, I'm also very bad about playing with my own injuries). It goes to the core of my biogeekiness, and some of my fondest memories from childhood are of my first dissections (a sheep's heart, sheep's brain, and cow eye, during a summer program in elementary school -- I remember being especially amazed by the lens from the cow eye; I was so sad when it finally dried out and I couldn't play with it anymore). I also did dissections in 5th grade Anat and Phys (during my two years at a kickass private school), 9th grade bio, 11th grade zoology, and college bio lab. I haven't done any since then. Unsurprisingly, I do intend to let other people play with my body when I die, too.
This doesn't mean that it's not sometimes a difficult issue for me emotionally and ethically. I'm not particularly sentimental about dead bodies, human or animal, but I dislike waste of life. I have a hard time with anything that involves pithing frogs, and some difficulty with dissection of animals that wouldn't already be dead if it weren't for the dissection (like frogs, for example). And even though I know that not dissecting cats isn't going to prevent them from being euthanized, due to the massive overpopulation probs, it's still got an emotional tinge that's a bit rough. So, I'm really pleased that for lab (where we're finally doing lab work) we're dissecting fetal pigs. Because I'm an omnivore, and they're a biproduct of the meat industry, I have no problem at all dissecting them, and just get to enjoy the fascination of it.
I was really bummed to miss last class, when we started this dissection, so this class, I picked up with my normal lab group, who were perfectly happy to let me take the lead, and do all the poking and pointing and explaining for this class. And it feels really good to be doing something that I'm very good at (can't sing, can't dance, can't juggle, can find a gallbladder, can explain bio concepts clearly). I just wish we were spending more time on it. Apparently for the moment we're just doing these two sessions, although we may return to fetal pigs later in the semester for some of the other systems.
Anyway, so class was everything I like -- finding cool things, exploring cool things, explaining cool things (there's an overlap with patient-instructing there; I love teaching people anatomy, no matter whose anatomy it is). And apparently I have another study partner; one of the girls I was working with in lab asked to exchange numbers so we can study together before the upcoming exam. I'm really pleased about that; I like working with other people, and I like the teaching aspect of working with someone who's having a rougher time with the material than I am.
It's interesting; this class is good for my mood and self-esteem in much the same way patient-instructing is; it's the combination of feeling both competent and useful. And until folks started asking to work/study with me, it was just the former, and not so much the latter, so I'm psyched about the change. It also pushes me to work harder, since it means it's especially important to me to get the material right, and not be guilty of passing along incorrect info (one of the things I have a big bugaboo about -- it matters a lot to me to be a trustworthy source of information). And I do hope all that comes across as joy, and not arrogance. Interestingly, that topic actually came up with my coworker, while we were talking at the bus stop yesterday -- I don't remember how the conversation started, but she commented about the role I play in the office (I'm "answer-girl" for both work-related and non-work-related weird queries -- I know weird shit, and I'm good at researching weird shit that I don't know), and we were talking about how that's really one of my primary strengths and pleasures (it was a lot of why I loved Quiz Bowl in high school, even). That's very, very true. I'd say it goes to the core of most of how I organize the work I do in the world. I'm happiest when I'm functioning as a resource for people, whether it's about sexual health info, anat and phys material, correct support routing for Bluezone FTP probs, or who to contact to report low water levels in a local lake.
When I'm depressed, and my self-confidence is low, it really takes that away from me; I become convinced that I'm somehow providing flawed information, and self-doubt starts to muzzle me. And, without that central positive aspect of how I normally interact with the world, I get more depressed, and so on.
On the flip side, though, "providing accurate information" is so ingrained into me that it sometimes messes with my ability to talk about my own emotions and feelings. I feel like I become unreliable when I speak about them, due to the nature of their changeability, and my own perspective shifts (made even more dramatic by the bipolar), and I have a hard time accepting that. In fact, some part of my brain is certain that if I am unreliable in that way, then people will start to consider me "untrustworthy" in more objective arenas (which is pretty stupid, I realize, but I've seen that thought pattern in my brain repeatedly, nonetheless). Also, all this obsession with accurate information makes being politically and socially activist pretty tricky, too. I get very angry at myself if I feel like I'm passing along or participating in obfuscation of the actual situation. And I get infuriated at my own parties and groups when they do that sort of thing (which most are guilty of sooner or later, and mostly sooner). It's not that I think I'm objective -- I have more than enough opinions and perspectives on the world. It's that I place a very high value on using honest material to back those up, and I that believe in being clear when I'm expressing opinion vs stating facts. And realistically, I think it's a better tactic in the long-run, too. Becoming known as a source of inaccurate material isn't the way to convince anyone of anything.
In an ideal world, I want to be a trustworthy person -- someone people can expect to say "I don't know, I'll research it" rather than pulling shit out of my ass, and someone who will acknowledge data points that support the "other side" even if they're less than comfortable. That's what I work toward.
Unsurprisingly, I'm exceedingly fond of Snopes, FactCheck, and debunking of almost any sort (although my fondness for Penn and Teller's Bullshit has been slipping since I've found them using questionable data without full disclosure on the sources/slants on some of the issues). And I think I get more angry at the antis in front of the clinic for disseminating inaccurate information (like the debunked breast cancer/abortion link) than for anything else. If you have to lie to convince people of an issue, your position isn't strong enough (this has lead to me dissociating myself from some activist organizations over the years, actually -- it's a tactic that's guaranteed to alienate me).
Huh. That turned into a much longer pondering than I expected.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 02:47 pm (UTC)I think that's a very positive thing, though. Far too many urban legends are passed around by people who have strong beliefs, and it damages their credibility.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 08:08 pm (UTC)Exactly! And when I see it done by people who are "on my side" it drives me especially batty, because my credibility suffers by association.
Truth and activism
Date: 2006-02-08 07:18 pm (UTC)I'm on your side, and it's a sore spot, hence some soapboxing. :)
I've been involved in a lot of the marriage-related ballot measures around the country, and we have this argument in every campaign. Basically, our side wants to argue "if this passes, it will have a huge number of unintended consequences. It may even harm straight people!" and a minority on our side (myself included) wants to argue about marriage itself, even if it's an argument we're likely to lose. As you pointed out, in the long run, better to tell the truth and lose today, so that people listen when we argue about something else (or the same thing) tomorrow.
In 2004, as we were getting swept in 11 states around the country, we were most honest in Oregon, where we also did the best, but even then, the campaign started to get a little antsy about it in the closing weeks and started to talk less directly about marriage and more about, "Hey, I have no problem with you being against gay marriage, but maybe a marriage ban doesn't belong in (cue dramatic voice) ... The Constitution."
This manifested itself in Ohio with our ads (bonus points to anyone who actually saw them), that (embarrassingly) said that Issue 1 forbade civil unions for straight couples (whatever that might mean), eliminated domestic partner benefits for private employers (we are now arguing in court that it doesn't), made it so that unmarried couples couldn't jointly own property (pretty much false), voided wills and deeds for seniors (no), and drove away jobs to cost you (normal straight person, you don't have to support equal rights for queer people to vote "No") more. Our tagline was "Vote No Issue 1 -- it could hurt you." (Or another version, "It's too extreme.") I know some people who gave a lot of money who were offended that we spent it on ads that strongly implied we'd have no problem with banning gay marriage if the amendment were written differently.
I'd like to say our position is evolving over time, and it might even be true. Last year in Texas, we tried the radical strategy of actually talking about marriage, family, etc. (One could argue that maybe this worked because it was Texas, after all, and thus people who would argue for the other kind of ad threw in the towel before the campaign started, and only people with a long-term view were even willing to fight.) The ads weren't perfect, but a marked improvement (they're online at NGLTF's site) -- they actually show queer people talking about being queer and using words like "marriage" and "gay" (I know, this shouldn't be a rarity when talking about gay marriage bans, but there you have it).
Before that, most of my work was with environmental groups, and don't get me started. But it seems to me that those groups have gotten a bit better in the last 10 years or so, too (I'm not on the inside anymore, so it's hard to say).
Some of these activist groups don't put any faith in the ability of people to listen. But most of my work has involved one-on-one campaigning, and it's shocking how well people grasp issues when you're having a conversation (as opposed to a one-way medium like an advertisement). Sound bites and dubious, provocative claims get necessary when you're too lazy to do the work necessary to get someone's full attention, in my view.
Re: Truth and activism
Date: 2006-02-08 08:07 pm (UTC)*nod* That was definitely the dominant approach that I saw from most of the groups involved in fighting amendment 1.
Actually, it reminds me a bit of the apologist approach to sexual orientation inclusivity -- the way in which "we were born this way" is used to imply that one must accept us just for that reason. It carries with it the implication that "we'd change if we could", and that leads toward "gee, we found a fix -- what do you mean you don't want it?"
I much prefer the only slightly more complex "religious freedom equivalent" argument that it's our right to do and believe things that you don't agree with, and you don't have to like it, and you can think we're going to hell, but you're damn well not allowed to discriminate against us.
Also, it's an argument that protects bi-folk a hell of a lot better, since the "we can't help it" argument really falls apart there -- so many bi people hear "Well, since you have a choice, you have to choose heterosexual behavior".
it's shocking how well people grasp issues when you're having a conversation
Amen!
Before that, most of my work was with environmental groups, and don't get me started.
Speaking of Penn and Teller -- I couldn't decide if I was more angry about the way they handled some of their environmental debunking, or at the environmentalists in question for making such massive targets of themselves by presenting bad info/data.
Re: Truth and activism
Date: 2006-02-08 11:30 pm (UTC)Snopes BTW has been wrong more than a few times, it's why I'll do my own digging on most things rather than trust them to do it.
Re: Truth and activism
Date: 2006-02-09 12:24 pm (UTC)I'd have to go back and rewatch to provide specific examples, but it wasn't the recycling one that I was thinking of. I think the one on the endangered species act, and the one of genetically modified foods both annoyed me. (GMO foods not because I have intrinsic issues with the concept, but because of the issues they avoided, about massive corporations having exclusive control over what gets developed, and how that affects the benefits and drawbacks that are considered acceptable). And with GMO foods, particularly, they found protestors on the fringe of the movement to critique, rather than also taking on the more mainstream complaints about it. I thought that was a cowardly approach, and unworthy of them.
Re: Truth and activism
Date: 2006-02-09 12:24 pm (UTC)