Child Rearing

I'm 20 years old and hopefully won't be worrying about this issue for quite a few years. However when interacting with a number of my compatriots I have noticed a striking difference in certain outlooks and personality traits that i have to wonder about. What in a person's upbringing causes individuals to view certain things as they do?
My example is this: When i sit around in front of a t.v. or video game all day I feel unaccomplished and I have a sense of guilt about it. If I do not read, write or workout during the course of a day I feel as though I wasted that day. A good day for me incorporates all of those elements and then some more.
Recently I realized that many of my friends have no problem with all downtime spent watching t.v. or playing a video game. They see it as a viable option to pass the time with. They see no reason why that should not consume every unscheduled hour of their life.
I began to wonder, why do i view that as a poor way to spend time? Why am I compelled to read and write and to work out?
I feel it boils down to the way my dad in particular interacted with me. In his eyes there was always something more productive that could be done. Reading and sports and writing were things that should all be done before playing a game or watching t.v. I'd be sitting in the basement helping yoshi and baby mario work their way across the screen when my dad would call down 'Isn't there anything else you could be doing with your time right now?'
Things that were acceptable? playing sports, lifting weights, reading, writing, doing homework, playing chess or any board game, cards, etc etc.
So now i have this thing where i cannot allow myself to do too much veggeing, not that i do school work (as my grades will reflect) but i read and write and get to the gym and apparently i blog from time to time. I spend time reflecting and thinking. Someone who i used to be quite close with asked me why I'm always trying to change who I am. I was puzzled by this question but then I realized that they were talking about how I'm always doing something they see as unnecessary.

So let me pose this question. Is it important to do these things? or do they hold just as much value as video games and t.v.?

Does a book telling a story have more inherent value than a t.v. show? or a video game?
Your thoughts? Things?

A few Talking Points.

Barack Obama Is our President elect. I could not be more proud of our country for breaking the mold of the Invisible 'no African Americans allowed' sign not the White house. I have not been alive for too many elections (this Is the 5th I've been alive for and probably the second I've really been cognizant of) and yet I've never seen or heard about an objection to a president-elect as I have seen from so many republicans as of late. Throughout the campaign and even now In the hours and ostensibly days since the election of Barack Obama Republican America (or 'Real America according to some Alaskan Governors) the republican supporters have not only been derisive and upset about Barack's election, but have also been whole heartedly offensive.
While cruising facebook in the hours after the election I saw some really Interesting status updates. Things such as 'Great, now we have a baby killer for president' or 'way to fuck up America!' Classics that crop up in any election can be seen such as this one: 'I'm moving to Canada!' or the more exotic 'I'm moving to Italia!' However those are rare and more common are the ones that read more like those I listed above and also ones like this: 'Sorry founding fathers...It was good while It lasted' (perhaps the one that makes me most angry...more on that In a bit).
Facebook was not the only place that held jeering and jabs. During McCain’s concession speech his audience again showed their colors (or perhaps lack thereof) by jeering and booing Obama whenever McCain mentioned him. And despite McCain’s Insistence that they calm their mob mentality they seemed to have a knee jerk reaction to his name.
As evidenced above, It would appear to me that there are some very strong feelings about tonight’s election and rightfully so. It is great to see that so many people felt so strongly about politics. It is rumored the Philadelphia had a 90% voter turn out and that this may have been one of the largest elections in history. Congratulations America for truly representing the Ideals of Democracy!
However, those strong feelings must be tempered with the cooling waters of Intellect. Firstly, to my dear friend who wants to move to Canada when Barack is in office I say this: Canada has been and always will be more socialist than America
Secondly: Socialism is not a dirty word in reality. Most of Europe works on that system and they seem to be doing quite fine.
Thirdly: Barack Obama is not Muslim. One of my favorite Incongruence in Republican slander to Obama can be summed up in these two statements: Barack Obama Is a Muslim terrorist! And soon after: Barack Obama has attended Reverend Wright’s church most of his life! Man...That’s one odd Muslim!
Fourthly (and this Is a pretty good segue): To anyone who thinks like my friend above ('sorry founding fathers, It was good while It lasted') or anything along those lines. Perhaps this is to those who think some fundamental value within America has been betrayed: America was founded on the concepts of acceptance both racial and religious. Our founding fathers were In America because of religious persecution In England and other nations. So If Barack were Muslim; to a true American, one who believes In America and all It stands for, that would not matter In the slightest. Furthermore the fact that he Is black (something I really did not even consider until this evening because It was brought up so much by pundits) should mean even less, except for the relatively remarkable turn around since the civil rights movement.
Fifthly: The demographic that Obama picked up the most votes in compared to his colleagues before him? The educated white male... That Is Information that, if I were so bold, I could make some stunning and inflammatory assumptions and logic lines about. I'll leave that to your own Imagination.
Sixth: America is a democracy, democracy does not mean that one side is right and the other is wrong it means that there are different solutions to every problem and each candidate has their own say. McCain realizes this and that is why he so eloquently urged all of his supporters to back their new president.
Seventh: Backing your president Is Patriotic. Oh...that’s funny...because Barack Obama Is President-elect and I don't hear much support from 'Real America'

on a separate note; I find that this election is a truly pivotal moment in our history. Never before have had two candidates represented opposing Ideologies as these two have. Never before has the nation rallied together for change as It has and then been opposed by the status quo as It was. Both candidates are great men and great leaders. However it truly was time for Barack Obama.
Why? Because the legal definition of Insanity is repeating the same action expecting different results.
Why? Because foreign nations are not only supportive of him, they support him with landslide figures. The country with the lowest support from its studied population? Russia with 53% other nations reach as high as 90%.
Why? Because he is an excellent orator with a diamond for a mind and a fresh new face.

And now I would like to take a moment and Introduce my first 'thing' I have posted a number of thoughts but no 'things'
My first thing, I think, will be the next great American Speech. I'm putting my money on it and I think you'll hear people saying it within the next week or so.


He is smooth, he is confidant. He touches on all of the elements of good speech making (Logos, Ethos, Pathos) he alludes to other great works such as MLK JR's I Have a Dream and Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. He uses repetition, and other techniques.

All In all I am happy about tonight and really just hope that the Republican side of the equation realizes that this kind of change is what America Is all about. Btw if any KKK members even think about killing Obama...they should realize that in doing so they would send the entire nation on lock down. We would root them out and destroy them. Racism is not a part of America. It fits no where in our constitution and nowhere in our Ideologies.
Thoughts? Things?

just a brief thought

Haven't updated this in a while so i figured i'd throw out an idea that just popped into my head for anyone who reads to ponder.
What would George Bush's administration look like now had 9/11 never happened?
How drastically different would this current election be?
I guess it just brings to light how entirely world changing 9/11 is/was.
I am a liberal, not afraid to state that but i do believe that, given no wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, George Bush would not be the infamous president he is today. I believe he would have faded into obscurity (aside from his scandalous elections) and been mediocre to fair. Thoughts? Things?

Who are you...Who am I?

Have you ever looked in the mirror and realized how nebulous you are?
Not that you, per say, are vague and large or in anyway similar to a nebula, but that perhaps you are not quite as consistent as you think you are.
For instance; I know I am Dan Zubrzycki. I'd like to think of myself as a funny person who can really get out and have a good time at a party, entertain people and have everyone wrapped around my finger because I'm so hilarious.
I'd also know that I am Dan Zubrzycki. I'd like to think of myself as a very serious, reliable, educated and thoughtful person who can debate, read, write and be taken very seriously when i talk because everyone respects my opinion.
However I also know i am Dan Zubrzycki. I'd like to think that i am artistic with a poetic penchant and can be rather eccentric, avoiding social interaction to be alone and more fully understand my art and my mind.
I suppose all of these things are true, personalities are not one consistent, infallible fact about a certain individual, rather an incorporated conglomorate which ebbs and flows, one facet yeilding dominance to another as situations change.
However if you read my peice a few weeks ago you'll have read about the Symbolic interaction theory. In brief it works on the same premise as operant conditioning: That the reaction of society to our actions, eventually determines who we are. A bully is a bully because when he attempts to intimidate, people are intimidated. A class clown is a class clown because when he attempts to be funny, people laugh.
So someone can try to be a bully but if they are not intimidating they will not be effective. One can attempt humor but that doesnt mean they will be funny.
So, as I see it, simply because i believe certain things does not neccisarily make them true. I believe i am a physically tough person with whom you do NOT want to get into a fight with.
I don't know how true that is.
So my question becomes this: are we really what people see us to be? So are the only segments of my personality that are true the ones that other people confirm? In essence does it matter what i believe of myself? For if no one sees certain aspects of your personality does that mean it doesn't exist?
On the one hand Symbolic interactionism does make it seem as though that is the case. What use is something if it is not seen? How true can something be if it is only internalized? We are social creatures (humans) and thrive on our interactions.
Conversely, if i believe myself to be an intellectual that will have a vein in all limbs of my interactions, be they humorous or serious.
Thoughts? Things?

Common Collectivity

If you've never read Immanuel Kant's 'What is Enlightenment?" you should. It is an excellent piece and quite easy to get through. Within he expounds an idea that we should learn and participate in the world on our own terms, not depending upon paid professionals to determine certain aspects of our life.

If I have a book to have understanding in
place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge
my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think,
so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me.

One of my basic beliefs applies here. That in order to make a point, more extreme ideas must be presented, with the understanding that the pendulum will swing back towards moderation eventually, bringing the essentials of your ideas with it. Example: Freud believed that absolutely nothing aside from the subconscious affected your psychology. While the idea that only that single aspect of psychology has long since been debunked, psychologists still consider his work influential and, certain aspects, relevant.

I now, after a long time of simply not analyzing Kant's statement, realized that he is wrong just as Freud was wrong. Not in the sense, perhaps, that he is a blundering buffoon whose logic is entirely flawed and erroneous, but more that he must be toned down.
The trend in many modern fields is a move towards niche-isim. The idea that we are trying to reach a very niched audiences and that everyone must have a very specific field of understanding.
Thus it could be argued that while yes, we all should take a personal interest and put some personal thought into our diets, our learning, our legal rights and a variety of other topics, we cannot understand all of these things to the utmost efficency and thus should use profesionals as supplements to our understanding. We need not fully replace nutrionists with our own understanding.

Keep thinking your thoughts and things

A collage of ideas: Farting is offensive to Cops; In need of a writing community; lies and the liars who lie in them

Title is, by no means, in order or a complete compendium of what i might say in here.

First off I am an aspiring novelist and I'd really like to connect with a group of people who want to get together every once in a while (weekly perhaps?) and read and critique each others works. (this, I suppose, is a more local plea)

I was very proud of my girlfriend recently. She broke an incredible social cycle, one which i have never understood. When a social clique is in conflict, it is natural for people to try and spread their bets even by playing to both sides in an attempt to fall in with the winner. For instance: two individuals disagree on a particular issue, statement etc. one of them asks the opinion of a third party source in confidence. That individual, in confidence, agrees with the person asking the question. When the other conflicted member approaches the same person, in confidence, that person will agree with them. So in reality no one has a full image of which side this person is on. The idea is that neither of the individuals would ever divulge the conversation to the other, and so by playing it safe and not choosing a side you are able to maintain friendships across the board, regardless of how truthful you have been.
My girlfriend, however, broke this cycle. While she was talking to the person she was in a disagreement with, she called out one of the people that both of them had spoken too and, in a public forum, forced them to declare who was right. To some this might seem bitchy "oh no she broke this persons trust! She forced a confrontation" well in reality what she did was a win-win for her. If she called this person out and the individual sided with her, then the other person saw that their position was weak and illegitimate. If the person she called out sided with her opponent she gains credibility, showing that the person is a fake who is willing to lie for personal gain.
I suppose the point of this rant is that we, as people, should choose sides, and if we are moderate in an argument, then openly opt to not take a side. It is cowardice in the highest form to attempt to side with both people, it shows you have no true loyalties.
I would really like to see/perform a social experiment based on the idea of social loyalties...more on that later!

http://www.startribune.com/nation/29722404.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUnciaec8O7EyU <----really?

How much respect do we owe police men? I live on a street where, not two days ago, two officers were shot and one was killed. I have enormous amounts of respect for the men in blue who put their lives on the line for our safety every day. It is incredible. However, how much power should they be allowed? Someone makes them a little angry and suddenly they can destroy a life. The man was drunk and should, at most, serve a minimal sentance. However now he is being charged with assaulting a police officer which could potentially get him a very severe sentencing.

Keep thinking your thoughts and things.

Atom Smasher May cause armageddon: so what?

This is just the first article about it that came up in google: http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/30/doomsdaycollider.ap/index.html

If you don't want to read it, basically some people fear that this new atom smasher made in Switzerland and France might destroy the world. They believe that by smashing the atoms at this high of a power, tiny black holes will be created and will destroy the planet, Armageddon! Destruction! the END OF EXISTANCE!
While leading physicist Stephen Hawkings (a venerable genius if there ever was one) says that even if this would happen, they would still dissipate, some people who, i suppose, consider themselves more learned on the subject than him, claim that the world will end.

My question is this: So what?
Understand that this is not me being 'emo' or depressing or something along those lines. I'd like to believe i am simply approaching the idea of Armageddon from a purely logical standpoint.

If the world 'ends' and we all really do get sucked into an ever increasing vortex which consumes all matter, why does it matter? My biggest fear of dieing personally is that I will not have left any great legacy, that no one will remember me. If no ones around then why does it matter? The end of the world would in reality mean very little to the world as we know it. Simply put, because there would be no world as we know it. People sometimes accept death towards the end of their lives because they know their time here is spent. There will be no here for us not to be spending time in and so there is little to fear.
I think of it this way
We fear death because life is an earthly thing. Our attachment to this world is founded in the experiences we have while on the planet, the things we own in the planet, and the people we know on the planet. The contingency is the planet. remove the planet from the equation and the other things present no longer exist and can no longer cause attachment.
Perhaps i am reading too much Buddhist literature but if the prerequisite of an assumed existing object is removed, is it not true that the object no longer can be assumed to exist?

First Post

Big thing here, my very first post.

I'm currently a student, this of course means that I am consistently bombarded with information. I love this aspect of being in school mainly because it forces you to think about new topics and consider new perspectives. One such idea that has recently come into my view finder if you will, is the idea of symbolic interactionism.
As a high schooler you are often bombarded with sayings such as these: "Be yourself! Don't let other people change you!" the message is clear; that we should each be a unique individual entirely unphased by the perceptions of others.
However this is, in short, what symbolic interactionism propounds. That we are what we are percieved to be. How does a class clown become a class clown? Not because he is studious and everyone treats him with great respect, but because his antics generate laughter! When someone laughs at something you say or do you become a funny person correct? I think of myself as hilarious but no one necessarily perceives me in that light and so i am not a class clown. The difference between one person and another is simply how they are seen, this molds our personalities. It relates back to the idea of operant conditioning in Psychology; we moderate our behavior based upon the reactions of others. If we receive rewards (people become our friends, laughter, pleasurable feelings) we continue the behavior that elicited that response. If we get punishment, negative feedback (mocked, laughed at, disappointment) we seek to stop these behaviors. These actions become our personality.
The idea of action becoming personality is an interesting one as well. Does it matter who we think we are if no one else sees that? If our actions are immoral yet we claim to be moral, then we are liars. It is that congruence that is needed, between action and idea, to create personality.
Perhaps this is why so many High schoolers have such identity issues, the convergence of two irreconcilable forces: The "dont go changin'" crowd and the overwhelming forces of symbolic interactionisim and operant conditioning. We all change from one time to another. Barrack Obama does not act the same way on the podium as he does in his home i hope. I do not act the same way in class as i do in my apartment. This is because i am in a different sphere, the climate has changed and so i must change my clothing!
When a teenager is meeting new people, developing social circles and creating personality they are going through a very intense stage. What they must do is attempt to maintain credibility by balancing thought and action (as i said before, if you think you are moral, be moral) while also balancing differing climatic variations.
My guess is that the final stage of development for the personality is when we discover that balance between how well we manage our thoughts and actions as well as how we respond to external stimulus.

I'm not 100% on if i believe everything I just wrote, perhaps it was me fleshing out ideas. I might review it later.