I am an addict baby, that's no lie...(ah, k's choice)

Over the past couple of days I have been thinking about addictions. Why you ask? Well pay attention! I was challenged earlier in the week to quit a couple of addictions in an attempt to 'manage' (I feel like fix would be too definitive) some health stuff. I agreed to it, with caveats, like "I can't do it until I get back from japan, because I need caffeine when I travel" "but when I get back I will definitely do it"....

The psychological mechanisms of addiction have intrigued me for sometime (not enough to work in the field mind you). Anyone I have ever spoken to with any kind of addiction, from caffeine to heroin, always develops (albiet unconscious) some seemingly rational justification of why they engage, and continue to engage in things which are ultimatley unhealthy for them. I am at a loss to describe an addiction which is good for you, in the sense of addiction being at the extreme end of the behavioral continuum. Even exercise or eating vegetables have negative consequences both physically and psychologically when at that extreme end of behavioir. And we know it's bad. I know that my diet coke habit will probably result in many long term health issues that at this time in my life I have no concept of. I justify this to myself (and clearly anyone who will listen) that there has been no causal link between diet coke and brain tumoirs, or stomach cancer, or Leukemia. But there wasn't a causal link proven between smoking and lung cancer for many years either, it was just a process of getting enough people into trials to show the effect. Showing causality is fraught with scientific danger, but in the absence of causality do I think that drinking copious amounts of chemicals is good for me? Of course not. Does this knowledge stop me doing it, or provide a voice in my head every time I take a sip reminding me of the danger? Nope. Not even a little bit.

Many memoirs have been penned reflecting the difficult nature of addictions and the seemingly infinite cycle of fighting them ( a little part of me hopes that a talk show host will read my blog and make me famous). Why do we keep doing things that we know are bad? Can it be as simple as "because they make us feel good?"

The path of starting an addiction often seems pretty innocuous in and of itself, one smoke, a couple of cups of coffee, just one more pain pill. I was reminded of this a little on the weekend when I watched "Trainspotting" and that constant idea "of just one more hit", our human behavioural assumption would indicate that when a person is ready to give up (point to appropriate place here on the stages of change model) we should just give up, but all the research suggests that setting a date to stop a behaviour is more successful. Its almost counterintuitive.

Meanwhile. I am open to giving up the "dc" but mostly my motivation is financial. I am ready to have an extra $30 a week. I'm not ready for headaches, sugar crashes, fatigue and bottles of water. Is this a predictor of poor quitting outcomes? I think not, I have quit loads of times before.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Vicarious capitalisation

So, earlier in the week I was faced with a shocking and confronting site. I was in a place which is held in esteem, with attendees often presenting themselves with an air of arrogance. I am making reference of course, to the presentation of the Archibald prize finalists at the Art Gallery. It had been my first outing to the gallery and I will admit i was a little apprehensive. I'm not an art person, I felt a little intimidated and was sure that at any second someone would uncover my secret identity as someone who clearly knows very little about art.

So, anyway, I was walking about, using the appropriate words and expressions (for instance, ah I like the texture of this, the shape and perspective of that...) and no-one seems to be any the wiser to my art inadequacy.

So, whilst looking interested and engaged (which i was!) I was shocked and deeply saddened by what appeared before me. A good selection of the signs (I am sure they have a proper art name) had very irregular, and at times inappropriate in their use of capitalization. Now, to clarify, I am not a grammar nerd, not even close. Spelling provides a reasonably consistent challenge for me even after 10 years of higher education. However, I have a sound understanding of the use of capital letters (as do most primary school aged children) and very little tolerance for laziness.

My companion at the gallery seemed somewhat concerned as well, but not nearly as much as myself (some may argue that her reluctance to engage in my issues may actually represent an appropriate response to a small trivial issue, as opposed to my clearly extravagant and ridiculous response). She suggested that laziness was the cause of this disappointing signage. Is it appropriate to accept such a level of laziness at this fine institution? I for one don't think so (in case you had missed what I am working towards here).

My concern is not so much about this incident in isolation, but a general trend in society away not only from perfection but to a carelessness of our use of language and an understanding of the foundations of such. I will admit to the occasional use of an abbreviation in the text message, and at times have even caught myself writing ur in papers (which thankfully my spell checker picks up very quickly). When I work with adolescents I tell myself that my use of this 'hip language' is representative of my very cool and funky intouch persona, and not an expression of laziness. I guess my question is more about where the limits of use of appropriate grammar and formalized styling of language and words? I would have thought that in a serious traditional institution would provide a gold standard of acceptable use. Mmm perhaps not.

Cya. ;p



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

So why idle Tuesdays...

So. Welcome to the blog. Wait, I already said that. I don't want to create a bad impression, because you know how people make judgements quickly, within seconds seems to be the accepted understanding. Anyway, so I have flirted with blogs previously, I even had a brief relationship with one for a while. It was nice, lasted a couple of years, I expressed thoughts and feelings about triathlon training. Yup, you heard it here first, a whole blog dedicated to training. And I wasn't the only one, there was a brief period in the mid 2000's where there was more than a smattering of training related blogs. Unfortunatley for me, my relationship broke up based on quite significant differences. It turns out (prepare to be shocked here) I am not an athlete. Not even a little bit.

So this second flirtation with blogging is going to be grounded in a couple of my other interests; criticism, psychology and more of a cultural critique (Alan Jones minus the gross and blatant bigotry). For old times sake, I may enter into running and cycling sporadically ( I promise the visits will be brief and entertaining).

So, I can see the confusion on your face, what is the idle Tuesdays about? Well, since you asked! :)

Since hearing that random 'Sunscreen Song" which I believe was penned by Baz Lurhman for some kind of reinstatement of Shakespearian values for the 90s. This song provided many valuable pearls of wisdom, of course about wearing sunscreen, taking care to avoid arthritic knees and not colouring your hair alot. It also makes quite insightful reference to the notion that those incidents in life which provide the most jarring and distressing situations are those which occur randomly on Tuesdays, without warning or any sense of ability to prepare...And so, I recall frequently the salience of this, and in my experience i have found that this is indeed the case. Tuesdays bring me the most unexpected, difficult, heart wrenching and frustrating experiences. I will dispense these experiences....now. Again, I borrow from Baz. And I won't be doing it all now. I think I might publish on Tuesdays, oh yes, yes I will.

Entry in the random

Welcome