Higgs Boson Explained

I barely understand any of this, but from the little I understand I think it's pretty cool.

Via PhD Comics

Yu-Na Kim

It was right after lunch, 1 in the afternoon, when the streets became silent in Korea. All cars stopped, all transactions stopped, all pencils dropped. All eyes were fixed and all fists were tensed. The only movements were the flickers from the TV screens. It was Yu-na's turn, and Korea was cheering, silently. Everytime she jumped, our hearts jumped with her. We held our breaths in fear and in concern, but unbeknownst to man she was already a winner.


I wonder whether she won because she is simply superior than her competitors, or because she genuinely loves skating and understands its joy. Because out on the rink, she seemed like she was really enjoying it. In fact, she seemed like the one having the most fun.

Pictures from naver.com

Aesthetic Emotions

Why is it when we see a dead body in the street we have one reaction, but when we read of death in literature, or see it in the theatre, we have another?

Is it simply because we know one is real while the another is not? Is it simply a mental suspicion that predisposes us to apathy when we read death in literature or watch it in the theatre? Or is apathy even the proper term? Perhaps it's an impasse, imposed unto us by progression of unnatural dictation of series of Hollywood residues and the efficacy of printmaking that lead to democracy of ethos? I'm not sure if the previous sentence even makes any sense, but what I'm inquiring is whether the over-stimulation in today's society disadvantages us to become disillusioned and uncoordinated, often minimizing what we truly feel, or ought to feel.

Ideas versus emotions.

I first heard about Haiti the day after their first earthquake of 7.0 magnitude. Truthfully, my initial response was a bewilderment. I marveled at such vigor. A 7.0 magnitude earthquake could decidedly alter the landscape of the place within few seconds. And it did, which cost hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives. The latter realization came to me as secondary.

When we see a dead body in the streets, we are likely to elicit a fear response or an avoidant behavior. When we see a dead body in the theatre or read them in literature, the reactions vary. Sometimes death is portrayed as a gruesome, merciless art, as often depicted in wars. Sometimes the subject of death is about mortality and immortality. In some, death may simply belong to the circle of life. In some, death seems beautiful and worthwhile. And although rare, sometimes death is even celebrated. And accordingly, our hearts may feel stained, anxious, peaceful, warm, and so on.

So why was it that I did not immediately empathize with the Haitian victims? Is it as simple as an evolutionary disposition, that abstract words and thoughts were not part of Mother Nature's agenda for nurturing our emotions? Or perhaps the issue is unique to me, along with few others? Or could further psycho-analysis reveal that this entire blog post is just an intellectual displacement to insulate myself from painful heartaches of possible empathy?

Maybe. But I'll save the self-diagnosis for later.

In life, idea and emotion come separately. Mind and passions revolve in different realm and capacity of our lives. It's rarely coordinated; it's a mess. And it's usually at odds, rarely as steadfast as we hope them to be. Often, your intellectual life prepares you for emotional experiences although you're rarely ready for them. And in a sense, your emotional life prepares for your intellectual life as well. But the two are rarely in unison. They're conflicting in nature. But in those scarce moments when the two fuse, you are overwhelmed by aesthetic emotions. An epiphany for the soul occurs. Reason alone won't be able to explain, nor any word will be sufficient to describe. In a broader context, it's love, whether it'd be familial love, unconditional love, or romantic love. Inherently, empathy is comprised.

It wasn't until I started browsing through the photos and the news of the second earthquake when my heart took empathy. People's homes and lives marred by natural disaster, I feel as though any sentiments I lift up and any prayer I give, however earnest, will still be seemingly superficial or inconsiderate.

Although significantly small, my heart and prayers go out to Haiti.

Photography by Carlos Barria via Boston.com (click for more photos)

Dear President Obama

Is is true that tomorrow at 8pm you plan to go to West Point and announce that you're increasing the troops in Afghanistan? Are the rumor and speculations true? Is it true that you're going to take the advice from General McChrystal and decide to spill more blood of the innocent and soldiers alike? I understand that there's pressure to comply with the extreme Right-wings who have always been hostile towards you, so of course you'd like to be mindful and show favor, but that can't be the main reason, can it? I also heard that the CIA and the World Bank were fundamental benefactors of the poppy seed plantations before the Taliban gained control of Afghanistan, but that has nothing to do with this, right? There are less than 100 Talibans left and with the WMD now understood as a myth, there's no more need to stain this sacred Earth with the blood of more innocent civilians, soldiers, and more soldiers that's rumored to be sent, right? It can't be true that you're going to turn a blind eye and ignore the majority of American citizens and believers around the world who had so much faith in you when you first came into presidency, right? With this single speech, you have the power to turn the young, hopeful generation, such as myself, into disillusioned cynics and once again prove that the world cannot change. But this is all just a rumor, right? Please, tell me it's not true..

It's not true. It can't be true, right?

It's true after all. Why, oh why..

Photo taken from google

Food Consumption

Sourced from good.is

The above infographic illustrates that the sugar consumption of Americans have grown by 19 percent since the last 3 decades. But it's not just sugar consumption. It's the serving size, portion size, and calories as well. In the 1970s, about 47 percent of Americans were overweight or obese; the figure is 66 percent now. In addition, the number of just obese people has doubled, from 15 percent of our population to 30 percent. Twenty years ago, the average pizza contained 500 calories. Now it's a whopping 850 calories. Twenty years ago, popcorn had 270 calories. Now it's 630 calories, and is served in a tub! Bagel was about 3 inches in diameter. Nowadays it's 5-6 inches. You can follow up on it in detail from this link.

Now, I was reading these and the article does provide some explanations as to why we are eating more. And it's probably because, paralleling the growing American consumerism culture, the consumerism rate of eating out or drive-in's have also increased. And the article guesses that increased serving portions and sizes encourage us to eat more and more. It's probably true, but I was talking to a friend and he raised a good question on just how much our energy expenditure changed since the last 20 years. If I had to guess, it would be that the average calories burned per day actually decreased, and if that were true, that would make the news even more alarming.

I have other questions as well regarding how much more food additives went in to our food since the last 20 years, how much has our food chemistry changed, how much has our food been genetically altered or engineered, how much has the average time spent on cooking changed (probing into the rise in instant food culture), how much has the distance our food travel being imported or exported changed, how much the occurrence of food poisoning changed or food-related diseases have resulted in outbreaks, etc. I wonder..

Life Lessons from an Ad Man

"Advertising adds value to a product by changing our perception, rather than the product itself. Rory Sutherland makes the daring assertion that a change in perceived value can be just as satisfying as what we consider 'real' value -- and his conclusion has interesting consequences for how we look at life." Click here to view the video.

Obama Derangement Syndrome

Rachel Maddow, a MSNBC political commentator, speaks on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize 'controversy'. Click here to view the video.

Rising Atheism

Sourced from good.is

This graph is based on the most recent US data, but I'm sure Canada would reflect similar figures. Take a look if you haven't already. I saw this and I had two contradicting thoughts. Yes, the numbers are startling but it wasn't a surprise. On one hand, Christianity is still the leading religion in numbers of followers, but atheism nearly doubled in the demographic percentages. Indeed, it's quite a feat on atheists' perspective. But at the same time, as I'm looking at this figure of numbers and quantity, I also wonder about the quality. I wonder how the quality of the spiritual lives of Americans and Canadians have fared. But then, how is anybody going to be able to measure that? Hmm, food for thought?

Anywho, anyone have an idea why atheism has gained so much popularity? Or perhaps, it's not necessarily a gain on atheists' part, but simply a decline on the general religions. So, by default and lack of religion, people are becoming more and more atheists? I'm not sure. I understand one thing for sure though. Generally, people do not stand on two contradicting schools of thought or beliefs. And by mandate, if we're to live in North America, we are acculturated to North American thoughts, ideals, and beliefs. So, some aspects of the American culture must have changed enough to come to contradict with religious beliefs in general and naturally, have come to put them under stress.

I've never really wanted to read books like 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins or 'God Is Not Great' by Christopher Hitchens. To me, it always seemed too tedious to nitpick and argue with hyper-rationality on the subject of God. Strangely enough, I don't mind reading matters on other religions. And even cults and occults. I have a copy of the Mormon's bible that I entertained myself for a while, I had books on Jehovah's Witness for a while, and I had several books on various cults and occults. They're interesting to read. But I've never entertained reading the books on atheism. Perhaps, it's because atheism is a direct threat and argument against the church. But these books on atheism and the ideas that parallel them have definitely become part of the popular culture; I mean, Richard Dawkins is an iconic figure in the apologetic world! He's a cultural phenomenon, and millions have been exposed to his books, talks, arguments, and ideas.

I need to see this for myself. But even the books are just hints, incomplete stories to fully explain the rising of atheism. Small piece of the puzzle, but a piece nonetheless.

Placebo

"Placebos are getting more effective. Drugmakers are desperate to know why." is an article written by Steve Silberman that appeared in the September issue of Wired magazine. In the article, Mr. Silberman explores the growing American trend of pharmaceutical companies facing more and more failures in FDA approvals, more and more halts in middle of test phases and trials, and the seeming decline in effectiveness of preexisting and dominant drugs due to placebos growing more effective, in some cases, as up-par with the actual drugs. As confusing as this might sound and one would immediately question whether it's the drugs losing its effectiveness due to tolerance and resistance in the general population, a research led by Dr. William Potter shows that it's the placebo effect, and this effect alone, that's increasingly becoming effective. Why? Nobody's sure, but economists, psychologists, and cultural-theorists surmise that the marketing practice of pharmaceutical companies and health-care products have become so successful at convincing consumers about their products that we have become [conditioned] to respond to drugs regardless of their potency or true effectiveness. ('Conditioned' bracketed for my own word of choice.)

Read the full article at the wired.com/medtech/drugs/.

Glamour

The picture above is an excerpt from the 2009 August Glamour magazine. And the woman on the page, above the enlarged and bolded 'The Sexy Things Men Really Love', is a model named Lizzie Miller. She has appeared on Glamour before and by now, the Glamour office should be experiencing a steady decline of letters of appraisals and thank-you's for finally portraying an actual image of a woman. But it's worth mentioning again because hey, isn't she beautiful?

I think she looks beautiful. You can get a better view and read the article on the Glamour website.