Battle of the Sex Hormones

No, this isn't about fighting hormones - this about the two main sex hormones: testosterone and oestrogen (or estrogen) - the "male" and "female" hormones respectively.

Now, I know that not everyone knows that these hormones are not restricted by gender - one episode of Charmed made the mistake of having two coroners shocked that the female "corpse" had testerone in its system [facepalm]- so I'll give a quick summary here:

Testosterone - male body produces 10 times more than the female, but the female body is more sensitive to it.
Effect in males: Developes testis and prostate; promotes increased muscle, bone mass, deeper voice, and body hair; too much results in aggressive behaviour and atropy of the testes; lowers during fatherhood; makes organs like the heart and liver bigger.
Effect in females: Regulates menstrual cycle.
Effect in both: Essential overall health, and prevents oesteoporosis. Too much in females will produce some of the male results. Mental affects include higher risk tolerance, and higher levels are speculated to ward off dementia and Alzheimer's Disease. There are also suggestions of a "curvilinear or even quadratic relationship between spatial performance", as well as relations to attention-span and memory.

Oestrogen - there are three main types (estrone (E1), estradiol (E2), and estriol (E3)) which are active during menopause, non-pregnant/non-menopasusal stages, and pregnancy. So, the big one is estradiol.
Effect in males: Low levels are speculated to cause OCD, too much will give men breasts and lower libido; increases in sympathetic pregnancy; used to treat prostrate cancer in certain situations.
Effect in females: Develops breasts, hips, regulates fertility (ovulation); promotes finer hair and smoother skin; low levels lead to poor mental health; once breast cancer is established, high levels feed it; increase fat stores; accelerate metabolism; reduce muscle mass;
Effect in both: Helps wound healing. Too much in males will produce some of the female results.

Admittedly oestrogen doesn't appear to play that great a part in male bodies but it's there.
I could stop here but the actual reason I wanted to bring this up was because I was rewatching a couple of my favourite episodes of House: Skin Deep and Act Your Age. In these two episodes the hormones of oestrogen and testosterone feature as the central players. I rather like House as it accurately portrays medical disorders and I get to watch an intelligent jerkass prove why he's the best doctor.

Every fetus is a girl to begin with and then depending on if it is XY or XX, it will then change internally - the male/female hormones of testerone/oestrogen will then give the fetus secondary sexual characteristics, like the testes dropping in males.

In Act You Age the two child patients are suffering from "Precocious puberty" due to too much testosterone from a certain, ahem, "medication" their father is taking. The symtoms in the boy are extreme aggression and a heightened libido - which results in the rather amusing incident of an 8 year old pinching the female doctor's bottom and tackling (and biting) the male doctor out of jealousy.
The little girl, 6 years old, I think, gets her period, hair in places, double vision, hot flashes, and a stroke - basically the symptoms of an old woman.

What can be said for the girl is that she got puberty with none of the femininity and then proceeded to get all the symptoms of a post-menopausal woman - because there is no oestrogen here. In the boy's case he is now "macho", kind of like an animal when you think about it - territorial towards "his" females to the point of violence. It's okay, I talk about oestrogen bad points next.

In Skin Deep the patient is a 15 year old female model, who is revealed to have cancer on her left testes. Yep, she is in fact a male - one who suffers from pseudo-male-hermaphroditism due to Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. I mentioned that everyone is born as a girl and then they change; in this case the child is insensitive to testosterone and hence doesn't make the big changes. They still get testes but they don't drop and they don't develop in a male way. Instead they are entirely oestrogen, even more feminine than women. Perfect skin and shape and they never get a period.
However, just like testosterone, there are mental effects - in the case of too much oestrogen while the patient was docile, she was as manipulative as hell. This sort of figure appears in literature as the femme fatale, or the "seductress" in the Three Faces of Eve.

I'm not entirely sure why I wrote up this note but I find it amusing on how the extreme effects of each sex hormone on their main gender results in the undesirable literary archetypes of the possessive violent male and the manipulative vamp, who, traditionally, always lose to the main character or never get the boy/girl.

I dunno, maybe it's everything in moderation making its way to the surface in a strange way - funny since these archetypes appeared before people even knew about these hormones and their effects.

Fear versus Actuality

I just thought this was funny and sad at the same time - it's a list of fears and the realistic chance of them eventuating. Found in a book published in 2006.

Deadly shark attack: 1 in 280 million
Deadly antrax attack: 1 in 57 million
Deadly airplane accident: 3 million
Shot by a sniper: 1 in 517,000
Losing your job: 1 in 252 (this is pre-GFC though)
Home burglary at night: 1 in 181
Developing cancer: 1 in 7
Catching foodborne illness this year: 1 in 4
Cathing a sexually transmitted disease: 1 in 4
Developing heart disease: 1 in 4
Dying five to ten years earlier if you're overweight: 1 in 4
Death from tobacco-related illnesses: 1 in 2

Funny: Not only are you more likely to catch a deadly case of anthrax than get killed by a shark, even more likely to get shot by a sniper than die in an airplane crash. It's amusing to think that we should all be more worried about little red lights being directed at our heads over giant fish with multiple teeth.

Sad: Why do people spend so much time worrying about the improbabilities in life, when there are real things to be afraid of that can actually be prevented by healthier living and regular medical check-ups?
Instead we're hearing the Jaws soundtrack play in our heads everytime we go to the beach.

Self Fulfilling Prophecy

When one hears the phrase "self fulfilling prophecy" most mythology buffs will immediately think of the story of Oedipus - the boy who heard that he will kill is father and marry his mother, prompting him to leave town to spare his parents who were actually his adoptive parents and thus actually end up killing his biological father and marrying his biological mother. There is also the fact that the whole reason he was left on that hillside was because his father heard a prophecy that he would be killed by his son.

Actually come to think of it an awful lot of kings get that prophecy thrown at them.

Another example is Paris of Troy - Paris was a shephard after his parents abandoned him to the wilderness because the queen dreamt that she gave birth to a firebrand who would bring Troy to ashes. Zeus chose Paris to judge the the beauty contest that the goddesses were having because he was a humble shepherd. If not for that prophecy Troy wouldn't have burned. (Actually, the Trojan war can be traced back to a curse many generations prior on another household but suffice it to say that that the stars were not aligned favourably. :P)

One final example is actually from Norse mytholgy - Odin was told that Loki and his children would bring about the end of the world. So what did he do? Lock up all of Loki's kids and have everyone shun the guy. Gee, I wonder why the god of Mischief slowly got evil and at least three of his kids grow to hate Odin. (Fun fact: Loki was actually benevolent - one myth I stumbled across actually had a poor couple ask Tyr and Odin for help in saving their sons from giants only to have those two give up after failing once. When they prayed to Loki, he actually fixed the problem permanently.)

Anyway, you are probably wondering why I related these tales to you. It's because these "prophecies" aren't just restricted to mythology or fantasy - they are very much applicable to real life.
If you look at each of the above examples the prophecies aren't predicting happy dreams of fluffy bunnies and spiders - they're all about destruction, death, and general negativity. They're about fear. We may as well call them "self fulfilling fears", which is actually what I wish to talk about.

Now, a lot of us have a fear of some sort: I, myself, have a fear of falling. (No, not a fear of heights - that would be irrational...) However, the fears I wish to discuss are the psychological ones (yes, I know all fears are psychological but I mean the ones that aren't a fear of a physical thing... or lack of thing). For instance a fear of heights falling is hardly self fulfilling.

This is hardly a new concept - it's all over the place in sociology (and time travel). I'm just putting it in one place and chatting about it. (It is also in economics but I will cover that subject in more depth in a later post.)

Since most people are familiar with the Pygmalion effect (treat someone one way, or expect someone to do something and they will meet your expectations - e.g. Loki) we won't dwell on it, mainly because it's the Reflexivity Theory that is most relevant here. It's where you believe something will happen, so you react in accordance to that belief thus bringing about that belief (also present in the Loki myth). (Economics example is that if you believe prices will fall you will sell - this causes supply to increase and demand to either decrease or remain unchanged, either way the prices will fall.)

I will use three examples of fear to explain:

Fear 1: Abandonment.
Now someone thinks that their friends or family members will eventually leave them - perhaps this belief is founded, perhaps not but that's not the point. Depending on the individual there would be two more common reactions - clinginess (must hold onto them while I can) or distance (mustn't get attached because they'll go away). Blah blah clinginess makes people want to have their space blah blah - discussed to death. In the case of distance this makes the people around that person wonder what is wrong but the fact that they keep getting stonewalled will make them think that they are not wanted and so the will eventually leave. There we go, "abandonment".

Fear 2: Not Good Enough
This is one I saw recently. Now, keep in mind that the idea of "good enough" is subjective. The person believes that they "ruin good people" or "don't deserve good people" - good being their own definition. So, they settle for what they believe are "bad people" because it's what they think they deserve and further indulge in "bad behaviour" - rending thing unworthy (in their minds) of said "good people". Eventually they may actually become unappealing to the "good people" if these behaviours are that opposite those of the "good people" (not saying the "good people will look down on them but just that they don't want to date them - there's a difference). Self-fulfilling.
(The main thing in this one is that they really believe this and that nothing they can do will ever make them worthy - that is their fear.)

Fear 3: Crushing Rejection (pun!)
Suppose you have a crush on a friend, maybe a new friend. Now, obviously you really like them and you don't want to scare them off by declaring it. You want to be sure first. So you wait a while and guess what? You really do like them. But you also like them as a friend and, just like before, you don't want to ruin the friendship. At the same time you don't want to be stuck in the "friend zone" for eternity but the "ruin the friendship" fear is greater. So you don't say anything and the crush gets worse as you get more and more attached and hence more and more afraid to confess. This one isn't so much self fulfilling as it is self stagnanting. A vicious cycle where the fear feeds itself.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be wary of these things, but being afraid of them results in more harm than good... such as the fear itself or stagnation. A wariness would be much better served - so that the first prson doesn't push people away, so that the second seeks to correct what they see as "bad behaviour" rather than fall into it, and so that the third isn't so paralyzed.

The last thing I said about Fear 3 was that the fear feeds itself - the same goes for them all. Fear 1 gets more rejection, and Fear 2 becomes more "unworthy". They all dig themselves into a deeper pit from which it becomes very difficult to emerge from.

Fear... it's pointless. Wariness isn't - you should be cautious. Fear for your life is ok - that's instinct. But these other fears feed themselves and grow. Even "fear of failure" results in a crash and burn scenario from overwork, or failure at something they neglected (usually a personal life). But yeah - fear is self fulfilling, so don't give it the satisfaction. As you can see with the above examples, it's very difficult to get out once you're in.

(P.S. It's Monday here so... I'm still adhering to my schedule.)

Addendum: Fear 3 is not a bad thing so long as it's weariness and not fear. Not confessing because you're scared is silly; not confessing for other reasons is not. For instance, if you know your friend doesn't feel the same way (duh), if you're not sure how they feel (this is not a "scared" thing - the fact is that they may feel pressured into reciprocating those feelings or it could get awkward for them. It should be more about how your news will effect them.), or, and this is a nice one, you are happy being "just" friends with them and value that over the possibility of a romantic relationship. There is nothing wrong with friendship after all.

I just felt I had to clarify that.

A Late Halloween Note

Ah-ha! I wasn’t late – I said Monday or Wednesday. Today is Wednesday.

Now, had my brain actually processed the fact that it was Halloween while I was writing last week’s post, I probably would have posted this one to be thematic. However, my brain did not.
Partially because I am still researching my other drafts and partially because I am procrastinating exam study I present to you an observation I made when I was around 11 or 12 on vampires after attending a science talk. See how this would have been fitting last week?

Firstly I shall state that this is my musing on an unrealistic topic – I occasionally like to dissect myths and then consider reconstructing them. Now, setting sparklepires aside, I shall list the "facts" about vampires (the typical ones anyway – not going into every mythology):
• They are undead, a.k.a. they have no pulse and don’t breathe yet can move around and talk and apparently think.
• They never age.
• They can be killed either by a wooden stake to the heart, a rod of hot iron to the heart, or decapitation.
• They drink blood.
• They are typically created by the body of the deceased being possessed by some sort of demon. (This is supported by the belief that warlocks and some murderers would become vampires after death as they were in league with demons.)
•• (Also babies who were born with hair, an extra/missing toe/finger, or teeth were also destined to be vampires.)
••• (So according to folklore I should be a shape-changing vampire. Man do I feel cheated.)

Now, 11 year old me came up with this idea: vampires don’t age because they don’t breathe. Note that we mention nothing of decay – that’s clearly magic. (Or the chemical anomaly that occurs in some bodies causing the body not to decay, like the “Incorruptible Saints” in Catholic religion but does sometimes occur outside of recognized sainthood.)
Back on track! Now, the vampire, being dead, does not breathe nor have a heartbeat. As humans we need to breathe in order for our bodies to absorb oxygen into our blood for our hearts to then pump to our muscles and organs. However, oxygen is both our necessity and our killer – oxygen free radicals (all free radicals) destroy cells. The cell destruction causes us to age.

(For those of you who don’t know what a free radical is, it is a molecule that rips off parts of other cells to complete itself. So eating certain foods "complete" the radical so it won't need your cells. Read up on oxygen free radicals here - it's more scientiffic.)

In short, oxygen free radicals cause us to age, thus breathing causes us to age. It causes us to live, but it also causes us to age. Vampires however don’t need that pesky oxygen in order to “live” so they don’t need to age.

Now, I’ll drag garlic into this – garlic is an anti-oxidant like green tea and coffee. Except vampires don’t hate green tea and coffee. So why we eat garlic because (a) yummy!, (b) we’re Italian, (c) we like to take care of ourselves and eliminate those nasty oxygen free radicals, or (d) we are a male who wants to increase our fertility [which links in nicely with the second half of this post], vampires don’t need to do any of the above. They only drink our blood, they’re probably Romanian (I jest on both this comment and (b) of course), they don’t need to take care of themselves – they’re freaking immortal, and it’s highly unlikely that they want kids in the traditional sense. So, the only reason they would eat garlic is if they wanted bad breath.

Clearly vampires are so vain that even bringing the vile food near them would cause panic. :P
(For all the benefits of garlic see here - it's an awesome food.)


And now, in a surprise twist (not), I reveal that the idea of the Dhamphyr or “half-vampire” has mythological –and not Hollywood-squealing-fangirl- grounds. Now while it is so much fun to make fun of the fact that Edward could never have bedded Bella due to the lack a heartbeat thus no blood flow thus no erection, this idea of vampires going around and bedding people is rooted in mythology. In Slavic mythology was believed that if a man became a vampire, his first act as a member of the undead would be to seek out his wife/girlfriend/love-interest and, well, do the deed. Now, someone funny may insert a rigor mortis joke here but they may actually be on to something.
(The Roma had female vampires instead, I will mention.)

The myths do generally agree that this was the first act a male vampire would perform and rigor mortis sticks around for 24 hours. However this would assume one becomes a vampire immediately after death, and not two or three days later as stated in other myths. We would also be assuming that every other muscle in the body is unaffected. So that’s just dumb – vampires cannot have sex, let alone have children. (Hence it would be pointless for them to eat garlic.)

Not that this logical gem has stopped people from thinking this, and I don’t just mean in fiction.

Now, there are actually documented cases (mainly in Romania) of men tricking/scaring women into going to bed with them by pretending to be a vampire and later getting caught out for it, so (assuming that all these girls weren’t complete idiots) there were cultures that stated that this myth was indeed true. (Like the aforementioned Slavs and Roma.)
The likely cause of this myth were (grieving) widows being “consoled” by male friends and finding themselves in awkward positions when the baby bump presented – saying that one’s vampire husband came back from the cemetery and left them a parting gift is a nice easy solution. It would also explain why the “vampires” don't usually make a return visit in the reports, while in the myths their fidelity varies. It could also be used as an "explanation" for girls losing their virginity before marriage while saving their virtue.

... Hmmmm, I should mention that the sex-education part of my post was a realization I had at 16 rather than 12. Also that I did not intend for it to last that long. And no, I won’t be going into the possible causes of the vampire myth – that’s what Wikipedia is for. I just wanted to point how it made weird sense for a myth that predated that medical discovery.
And so the myth lies dissected, the student too lazy to sew it back up...

And, after that bout of weirdness, I shall disappear again until next week – most likely Wednesday. Perhaps I’ll study in the meantime... or maybe work on the next post. Ah, procrastination, what would I do without you?

Guilty Minds

A musing about guilt, this was sort of inspired by a friend of mine more recently as well as a few observations and general experience.

Now we all know the feeling of guilt, right? It's that thing where you've done something and you feel bad about it and would like to make up for it. Not regret, that's where you wish you hadn't - I've felt guilty about lots of things but wouldn't want to undo it. Well, maybe change how I did it but moving on!

I'm not going to go into any details on the exact situation that lead to this thought and just, well, dive right in.
You see... I've had so many people throw around this "guilty" expression while decribing different types of feelings or situations. To me, the term "guilt" is just too wide-reaching, or at least not defined well enough such that its meaning has been diluted... so now I'm trying to sort it. I like sorting things - it makes me think I have some measure of control over things. But enough of me, now for my so-called reasoning.

There are four different kinds of guilt, of which I'd only call one of them proper guilt. Now, keep in mind here I'm trying to talk about the actual guilt experienced rather then being emotionally manipulated into feeling guilt.

Proper guilt, how I see it, is when you do something bad and you know you shouldn't have and you're sorry that did that bad thing. This is regardless of whether you've wronged someone or not. It's where you do something and then at some later point (preferably sooner than later) go "Oh crap... why did I do that?" It may be accompanied by regret.
This guilt isn't awakened by an outside source - it's your conscience telling you that what you did was wrong.

The next "best" is what I think of as reactionary guilt. It's when you don't realize/ackowledge that what you did was wrong until outside forces interfere. For example, you think it'll be funny to put gum into your sister's hair. You laugh until she starts crying and then you feel like rubbish. This also can come attached to regret especially in the former instance.
A different friend of mine is especially good at making me feel this sort of guilty without the regret completely by accident. Anyway, the key here is that you feel bad because you feel like you've done something wrong (whether you actually have or not is up to circumstances) and you wish to atone because another person's behaviour has brought this to your attention. This is like your parents telling you that breaking curfew is bad. Note that the emphasis here is that the guilt is brought on by the realization that you were in the wrong - not the other person's feelings.

Now we have the third guilt. Much like the second kind this is triggered by another person's behaviour. However in this case you are not trying to atone because you realize what you did was wrong, but because you made this person mad/sad/other-negative-emotion. Here there is emphasis on the fact that you are responsible for their feelings and it's that responsibility that you feel bad about. Most importantly the atonement is motivated by the desire to make the "victim" happy again.

Finally we have what I think of as faux guilt. This is most closely related to the third type but rather than making it up to the person because you feel bad that you made them upset, you're trying to make it up to them because you don't want them to be mad at you. The emphasis here is that you are responsible for their feelings but the reason you feel bad is that those feelings are directed at you. Here the atonement is motivated by the desire to make the victim happy so that they're no longer mad at you... if you get what I mean. It's more egocentric, it's about how this person's feelings effect you.

This can be tied in rather nicely with Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

The first guilt can be tied in with Post-conventual morality, especially, I believe, Stage 6. It is where "moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles". Basically "Congratulations! You have a conscience!".

The second and the third guilts fit mainly under both Conventional, though not very well, I think. Conventional looks at it from the point of view of wanting to be liked and thus acting in a sociably acceptable way which fits (which fits rather nicely with Guilt type 2, if not completely), while I like to think that type three is about more caring for the other person's feelings.

The fourth is Pre-conventual at it's worse (the "stop 'punishing' me" part) and Conventional at it's best (when it's focusing on the "why don't you like me" part). This is all about rewards and punishment. This is because they view these guilty feelings as a punishment, so they want it to go away. Stage 1 best represents this "guilt" in my opinion.

Unfortunately we also have cases where people feel guilt of any of the first 3 kinds (because I have no sympathy for those with the 4th kind... and yes I have been there so I'm not a hypocrite in this instance) because they have been manipulated into feeling it (types 2 and 3) or for no reason at all (type 1). However my inspiration for that aspect has run dry for the time being... perhaps another week.

It's Late

No, I'm on time but this is a reference to a very common occurance in my house and I'm sure others.

A small observation... as well as a bit of a rant. I'm still researching for my first proper and real post.

Now, sometimes I suffer from migraine headaches – these will knock me out for hours, often causing me to sleep through my alarms. But one thing happens without fail - I will awake to the sound of my mother going "GET UP! IT'S LATE!" Now, "late" varies between 10:30 and 11:30 but my question is that if she's been up since a reasonable time why does she always wait til it's "late" to bother waking me?

I mean, logic would dictate that when the reasonable time for awakening occurs it would be a good idea to wake someone up. I mean when I get up early, I don't wait til 11am to go and wake people up - depending on sleeping in plans I wake them at 8 or 9 and then remind them every half hour.

So basically - why not try to wake a person when you actually want them to wake up rather than much later? Or is there some strange joy attained from yelling at someone?

Anyway, since I don't think all parents are some sort of sadist or that they lose track of time that often it's just something odd I've observed.

Hopefully the research for a proper non-rant will be completed by next week.

An Introduction

Well, hello all.

Since I have already started this with what could possibly be interpreted as a horribly lame pun, I shall go on ahead and see just how badly I can mess this up.

What I hope for this blog (the operative word here being hope) is that it will become a compilation of my random thoughts, occasional rants, and philosophical musings. I hope for more of the last and first one... in that order. As for it's purpose, well, it's partly to inform and partly to organize my own thoughts... and maybe just a little, to entertain.

I intend on updating it weekly, specifically Mondays or Wednesdays.

I fully expect the amount of sense I make to fluctuate, so I wish anyone who endeavours to follow this the best of luck!