Blood

Lately I’ve been on an anime kick, and it’s heightened my awareness of the idea that blood type affects your personality. More precisely, it’s made me aware of my own prejudices and socialization.

Some background: as noted in the above link, many people (especially in Japan) believe that your blood type has an effect on your behavior. The Wikipedia article compares this to the Western belief in astrology. And the first time I heard about the blood type belief, I immediately dismissed it as bullshit.

Now here’s my question: did you feel the same way? Did you say, “That’s a ridiculous superstition”? If so, why?

After all, blood types like A-positive and O-negative are based on substances in your blood…and we know that substances in our blood can affect mood and behavior. (See alcohol and other drugs.) So why would we immediately think it’s nonsense that a particular blood type might slant our personality in a specific direction? The chemicals involved in blood type pass through our brain and all other tissues. Why is it ridiculous to think they might have an effect? The possible chain of cause-and-effect is obvious (unlike, say, astrology where a cause-and-effect mechanism is difficult to imagine).

There’s only one reason I can see why I immediately rejected the idea: because I wasn’t brought up with it. Therefore it felt weird to me. And perhaps I have an unconscious bias against unfamiliar notions from different cultures.

Now as it turns out, there’s no evidence to support the blood type personality theory. If the theory were true, it would be relatively easy to detect: just give personality tests to a bunch of people and see if there’s any correlation between blood type and personality scores. No such correlation has ever been found.

So the model isn’t true. But I still contend that the idea isn’t ridiculous, it’s just incorrect. I shouldn’t have rejected it until I saw actual data. The fact that I did say, “That’s bullshit,” makes me wonder how many other ideas I’ve rejected reflexively: not because they had to be wrong, but purely from my socialization.

How Do You Spend Your Time?

Recently, I started keeping track of how I spend my time. I don’t use a fancy app—I had a look at a few and quickly knew that I’d never use them. They required way too much work to set up. Besides, I don’t always carry around electronics. Life is better without being tethered to a phone or a tablet.

Instead, I keep my time records on index cards. I write a line every time I start something new, as in:

4:12—writing blog on time tracking

That’s all I need…because the point of this isn’t to come up with any sophisticated analysis of exactly how long it takes me to write 1000 words or edit 10 pages of someone else’s manuscript. The point is to understand what I’m doing.

First, how do I really spend my day? Am I putting in a reasonable number of hours? Or are there huge gaps when I’m not doing much of anything? I don’t begrudge myself relaxation time, but if hours at a time are disappearing and I can’t say where they went, that’s not good.

So now I’m keeping track. As I’ve said, I use index cards to record when I start new activities. One index card is usually enough for a whole day, and that gives me a picture of what I do. How long do I spend getting ready to work in the morning? How long do I take on breaks? How much time do I actually spend when I walk to the library and back?

Then, every morning, while I’m planning my day, I transcribe my times into a notebook. Really, this is just copying the times from the index card; it takes three minutes at most. But if I see that I frittered away a lot of time on the previous day, it orients me to use my time better today: less time spent disappearing down the many rabbit holes available on the internet.

It’s simple, but so far it’s working. I’m spending less and less time in black holes, and more time on things I actually choose to do. Let me emphasize that I’m not using this to beat myself up or to eliminate stuff like playing video games. Taking time for fun is important. The point is to notice if I’m spinning my wheels on stuff I wouldn’t actually choose to do if I thought things through.

So I’m reading more, and playing less computer solitaire. Go me! Less black hole time is good.

Sharing: August 26, 2018

More things I’ve liked recently:

Article: Ray Bradbury’s Greatest Writing Advice
Many interesting quotations from Ray Bradbury about writing and writing technique. Unlike many SF writers of his generation, Bradbury loved to talk about writing and the writing process. I don’t agree with everything he says in the article, but it’s all good food for thought.
Book: Starless by Jacqueline Carey
I’ve loved Carey’s work since Kushiel’s Dart, and I plowed straight through Starless at top speed. Starless is the first book set in a world where almost all the gods were cast down to earth for challenging the king of heaven. This has left the sky without stars and Earth with a ton of gods who’ve each adopted relatively small groups of people as their followers. Excellent world-building and many endearing characters, as well as an interesting story. I don’t know if there are more books to come, but the world offers plenty to explore.
Movie: Your Name
An animated movie from Japan. Two teenagers find themselves waking up in each other’s bodies every other day or so. The girl lives in a small mountain town, while the boy lives in Tokyo. Naturally, they have difficulties coping with the swaps (and with trying to “improve” each other’s lives)…but just when you think you know how the movie is going to go, there’s a twist that redirects everything. Hugely popular in Japan, and well worth watching for anyone anywhere.

Cryptic Crosswords

The other day, I met someone who had never heard of cryptic crossword puzzles. Since I’ve been addicted to cryptics for (OMG!) more than thirty years, I thought I’d talk about them today.

I assume that everyone reading this is familiar with normal (i.e. non-cryptic) crossword puzzles. A cryptic looks much the same, except that most of the answers have letters that don’t cross with other answers—every ACROSS word has letters that aren’t in any DOWN word, and vice versa. You can only complete the puzzle by solving every clue, both ACROSS and DOWN.

Another slight difference is that every cryptic clue tells how many letters the answer has. For example, if you see (7) at the end of a clue, it means taht the answer has 7 letters. Of course, you could get that from looking at the puzzle grid…but you might also see something like (4,3) meaning a 4-letter word followed by a 3-letter word, or (5-2) which means that the answer is hyphenated as shown.

But the major difference between cryptic and non-cryptic crosswords is that cryptic clues are deceptive. They don’t just give a synonym for the answer word; they usually give a synonym and a secondary hint, both disguised to make it hard to tell what’s what.

Here’s a simple example:

Midnight running event creates elegance(5)

(I’ll pause while experienced cryptic solvers figure it out.)

Okay, the answer is GRACE. Midnight = the middle of “night” = “G”. A running event is a RACE. Add G+RACE and you get GRACE which can mean “elegance”.

Here’s another:

The arctic is mapped with some of my minor thoughts(5)

Pause…

The answer is NORTH. The arctic is mapped up north, and some of “my miNOR THoughts” is NORTH.

These are common types of clues. You can see more such standards in the Wikipedia entry on Cryptic Crosswords.

If you’re interested in trying a cryptic or two, the Globe and Mail offers a free online cryptic six days a week. Doing the puzzles online lets you guess and get immediate feedback by clicking the “Check” button. (Warning: Canadian spellings.)

I also recommend the Two-Speed Crosswords in the UK’s Sun. “Two-Speed” means that there are two sets of clues: cryptic clues, and “coffee-time” (i.e. normal) clues if you can’t solve the cryptic ones. I should note that the Sun puts the T&A in TAbloid, so be prepared to see links to sleazy articles. The puzzles are good, though.

Both the Globe and Sun puzzles are reasonably easy. Several other newspapers, especially British ones, also run regular cryptics, but they’re usually much harder. They may also require knowledge of cricket and British football teams. But hey, it’s an education just trying to understand the clues, even when you know the answer. And if you’re a writer, cryptics are also good for your vocabulary.

[Blank crossword grid by Wikipedian en:User:Michael J, published under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2]

IWATH

Recently, the tor.com web site published a lovely article by Leah Schnelbach offering words of writing wisdom from David Mitchell (author of Cloud Atlas and several other novels).

If you’re a writer (or want to be one), I strongly recommend reading the article itself. But let me highlight the concept of IWATH, short for “I was there.” An IWATH moment in a piece of writing is something that makes the reader believe that the writer/narrator had to have been there when the action took place. It makes a scene seem absolutely real.

In my mind, IWATH means a detail so distinctive that it doesn’t seem like something generic that a writer might just toss in without thinking. For example, imagine a suburban backyard. There are lots of “standard” things you immediately think of: a patio, a barbecue, a swing-set, a vegetable garden, and so on. Some backyards may not have all of these things, but the features are common enough in backyards (at least in North America) that in a piece of fiction, they won’t attract much attention.

In other words, such details aren’t memorable. They’re what you’d expect. They don’t make you feel as if the writer is describing a specific backyard at a specific time. They give you a backyard that’s vague and generalized: one that doesn’t feel truly real.

An IWATH detail stands out as something that isn’t the same-old same-old. It needn’t be aggressively weird, just non-generalized. For example, the teenagers of the house may have placards laid on the lawn and they’re painting protest signs because they’re going to picket their school the next day. At the moment, they’re debating the pros and cons of putting an asterisk in place of the U in FUCK.

Suddenly, the scene is specific: not just any backyard, but a backyard belonging to a specific family whose members do specific things, and this is a specific time on a specific day. Whatever happens in the yard may have nothing to do with the protest at all—the business with the signs may just be a background detail. But it’s a non-generic detail. It seems like a real thing, so it makes the rest of the scene seem real too.

My first writing teacher, W. O. Mitchell, called these impertinences: details that make a scene feel real because they aren’t what a writer would just trot out when writing on autopilot. The tor.com article says that Mitchell tries to put three IWATH moments into every scene. If you’re a developing writer, that’s a great goal to aim for.

[Picture of clouds from flagstaffotos.com.au [GFDL 1.2], from Wikimedia Commons]

Sharing: August 16, 2018

More things I like:

Anime: Puella Magi Madoka Magica
I mentioned this in a previous post but I want to recommend it again…partly because I’ve now seen the whole series, and have started to watch it again from the beginning. So many little things in the series take on a completely different meaning once you understand what’s really going on. One particular character’s lines never mean what you originally thought they meant. Well worth watching and re-watching.
Casual Reading: The Princeton Companion to Mathematics
It’s big and expensive and frequently goes over my head even though I have a master’s degree in math…but I still had to own the book and don’t regret buying it. I’ve been working my way through it for several years now; I try to read a bit every day. It really is the best advanced-level introduction to the entire field of math that I know of. And here’s a cheat: if you think you might be interested, download the free sample of the book from Kindle. You’ll get lot of free reading so you can see if it’s your cup of tea.
Writing technique: Writing longhand
I do most of my writing at the computer, either in Scrivener or Microsoft Word. But if I really get stuck, I sit down at the dining room table and write longhand on loose-leaf paper. Writing longhand is a different experience than keyboarding. It happens at a different speed, and with a different mind-body orientation. If my brain is in a rut, or if I find myself inhibited when writing a particular scene, writing by hand almost always gets me out of the rut. Sometimes I write whole stories by hand. I think it gives them a different feel from the work I write by computer. Give it a try.

 

Lazy Good Intentions

We’re all familiar with the saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” But does that mean we should act from bad intentions? Obviously not. Nor does it mean that we should never do anything at all. Doing nothing can have worse results than doing something wrong.

The problem isn’t with good intentions. It’s with lazy good intentions. Half-assed good intentions. You vaguely want to do the right thing, but you don’t want to do the work of figuring out what that thing is. You want to do what will make you feel good about yourself, without seriously considering the actual effects on others.

I was prompted to write about this because I’ve been reading work by people who aren’t straight and/or white and/or male. There’s a feeling among those of us with social privilege that if you act from benevolent intent, then it’s unfair for anyone to criticize you, no matter what the effects of your actions are. And of course it’s true that no matter how carefully you might try to make the world a better place, sometimes it doesn’t work. Things go wrong; bad luck happens.

But often, problems don’t arise from bad luck but from thoughtlessness. You don’t try to see things from other people’s point of view. You don’t try to foresee easily predicted consequences. You don’t do your homework about how your actions might be received, but blithely go ahead with what you want to do, just assuming that your good intentions will make everything work out right (or at least make it impossible for anyone to complain).

This is the epitome of privilege. People without privilege damned well have to consider the consequences of their actions. For them, good intentions mean squat, and they can’t expect the benefit of the doubt. People without privilege have to understand how their actions might be received; they have to do their homework, deal with any possible glitches, and never assume that meaning well is good enough.

Those of us with privilege (and hey, I’m a straight white middle-aged male) have to start thinking more about how what we do is received. I already know I have good intentions. Now I have to make sure I have good results…and that means paying attention to others before and after I act, doing my best not to make mistakes from glib assumptions and definitely trying not to make the same mistake twice.

[Image of “The Good Intent” by Glyn Baker, commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Road_to_Hell%5E_-_geograph.org.uk_-_38556.jpg]