Jon Yang Org

What's happening?

2009-03-31T19:02:00.000-07:00

If you've been here before, you'll notice that everything's kind of the same, but also way different. This site will no longer contain my blog but will be my main author site. Don't worry, my blog (with all old entries) can be found at jonyangorg.blogspot.com. This is totally a good thing because I loved blogspot's widgets but couldn't get them to work on this main site.

So update your RSS feeds, your links, whatever you have to do. Thanks!

Nana (2005)

2009-03-28T03:09:00.000-07:00

Listening to: Mika Nakashima, "Glamorous Sky" (lyrics) and Yuna Ito, "Endless Story."

Ameer preceded this movie with the words, "I don't know if you'll like this." Then the titles came up. Big pink comic book letters intro, a movie about two girls looking for love and finding friendship, all encased in a J-Pop/Rock setting. How could I not like this movie? Apparently "Nana" is a top selling manga and this live action movie introduces the first story arc about two girls with the same name but entirely different backgrounds and styles. Nana O. is punk rock and dark, Nana K. is sugary sweet and armed with the biggest smile known to man.

While the story isn't anything ground breaking, the movie introduces the characters and their situations well. Nana K. has followed her boyfriend to Tokyo, Nana O. is there to make it big in the music scene. Complications ensue, love is lost and found, and everything is done (teen) romantic comedy style. But what sets the movie apart is that there's actually some good emotional depth involved. The two actresses who play the dueling Nanas are both incredibly captivating and charming. The movie reminds me a bit of Wicked, with the perky Galinda and reticent Elphaba inspiring and supporting each other.

"You never talk about yourself, it makes me feel lonely."
-Nana K. to Nana O.-

There's a lot of intentional and unintentional comedy in the film and the outfits on all the characters are outrageous and constantly comment worthy. We ended up watching the movie twice during the course of the day and I have no hesitation in saying that it's great. Highly recommended for lazy afternoons on the weekend when you need a bit of spark, a bit of heart, and something to take your mind off of things.

There are two main songs in the movie, listed and linked to up above. The actress who plays Mika Nakashima is actually a singer in real life and she brings authenticity to her role because of it. Her song hit number one on the charts. The other song, sung by a rival group, was headlined by Yuna Ito, who jump started her music career through the movie.

Everyone Else and You

2009-03-26T06:11:00.000-07:00

I've been buzzing about this thing for about a week now. Touch Graph is an application for Facebook that shows you how your friends are connected and interconnected visually. I know, I know, another Facebook app, blah blah blah. But this one is seriously cool and kind of useful. At least for me.

Awhile back, Lilly and I had this idea to create a Friend Web that you could carry around with you. It shows who your friends are, how they're connected, and what friend grouping they're in. It cuts down a lot on the "wait, who are we talking about again?" It was also a great idea for parents to know exactly who their kids' friends were. Well, Facebook neatly solved this problem because if you have an Internet capable computer/friend, you could just show people online. But, even then, the missing ingredient was a visual depiction of your friends and how they were related. Hello Touch Graph! We've been waiting for you!

Here's how Touch Graph works. By leveraging the connections that are already embedded in your Facebook information, the program comes up with a giant relational web of your friends. Those who have lots of connections to you and other people in your web are closer to the center. Those with fewer connections are further. Simple right? Keep in mind this doesn't mean those closer to you are your "better" friends, it just shows connectivity.

When you make your friend graph, you can adjust the settings to show however many friends you want. I'd suggest cranking it as high as possible for the best view. I tried smaller sample sizes but it wasn't as interesting. So once you crank your selection pool to the max, all of your friends are ranked, generally in order of how many connections they have to your other friends. But higher ranks are given to friends who are connectors between different cliques. They call this "Betweenness Centrality," which is a metric to measure a person's importance within a social network. Here's a cool article and explanation about that here.

So what's a clique? Different colors are used to show clusters and cliques. All your friends in a particular color are probably friends with each other, but not connected to other people outside of that group. It's really accurate and works quite well. I mean, the colors definitely showed my various cliques of friends, people who were "one-offs (unconnected to anybody except me)," and revealed all sorts of interesting information. You can also choose to organize your friend web by location, thus finding out how many people are in San Diego or New York, for example.

When you switch to pyramid view, it shows you by semi-tiers who's the most important people in your social network. Like who's connected to the most people, or who's the gateway friend for your other friends. This is freaking fascinating isn't it? It's probably not anything you didn't already know about your own friends, but for someone else to look at your graph, it really gives them an idea of your social worlds.

I'm just happy I finally found a good personal use for Facebook. All this time I've been doing it because everyone else in the world does it, but all those hours wasted on it has been repaid by the wonder that is Touch Graph.

What I'd like to see is someone's graph with two or three large dominant cliques. I tend to want to mix as many of my friends together as possible and I really only have one big group of all muxed up friends. When I visit you next, I want to see your Friend Web, thanks. For my settings under "Advanced" I used: Min User Photo (1), Min Edge Photo (0), and Min Network User (5)

While I'm at it. This other Facebook app is interesting too. It's called Socialistics and digs up demographic dirt on your friends in graph format. It's still got a lot of work needed but I was able to find out, for example, that 42% of my (Facebook) friends are married, 14% are engaged, 20% in a relationship, and 21% single. Also, only 11% of my friends are my age, with 56% of my friends being 26-28 years old. Once this thing can tell me how many friends younger than me are married/engaged, then I'll really know how far behind I am. Can't wait!

The Fempires

2009-03-23T18:39:00.000-07:00

"It sounds like fun and games -- the boozy, all-woman answer to those close-knit gangs of Hollywood boy-men captured on screen in 'Entourage' and embodied by the real-life Apatown, the industry moniker for filmmaker Judd Apatow's coterie of actors and screenwriters including Paul Rudd, Jason Segel and Seth Rogen. But these women also work hard: Ms. [Diablo] Cody, Ms. [Dana] Fox and Ms. [Lorene] Scafaria can command seven figures to write a movie that makes it into theaters with big stars. Ms. [Liz] Meriwether (the others call her 'the freshman') is on her way to joining them. That's no small achievement when you consider that among the screenwriters who are in steady demand for major projects, only about 20 are women. Don't even try to credit their bankability to their looks."
-An Entourage of Their Own-

I Love You, Man (2009)

2009-03-20T18:25:00.000-07:00

Not normally a movie I'd pay to watch, since I don't like 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and other Apatow-esque guy movies. If you want to read a positive review of this movie, click here.
"But what I appreciated most was the way that the film captured the modern American male condition with thought and humor. On the whole, when men get married, study after study has demonstrated that they are more likely to depend more on their spouses for emotional support than they do on others, as opposed to females, who are typically able to maintain a more extensive social network. As a result, widowed men experience higher rates of depression and shorter periods until remarriage."
-Slashfilm review-
I don't think the movie captured much of anything but it is a great concept and can be the launching pad for fun conversations about bromances. The conceit of the movie is that Paul Rudd is about to get married (to Rashida Jones) but he has no guy friends, which indicates he's flawed in some way. Awkward moments, dumb jokes, and a few laughs ensue. Yawn.

The only thing that did strike home was how the movie highlighted the difficulties males can face in trying to meet other males. It's something that could be a problem, I guess, but really, males bond over lots of things, especially hobbies. So just go find an activity you sort of enjoy, do it on a regular basis, and you'll make a guy friend or two. Maybe not one you'll say "I love you" to but that's okay, isn't it?

I seen, I saw

2009-03-19T20:34:00.000-07:00

During the past week, I saw six movies in six days. It was the Asian American Film Festival and there's nothing better I like to do than watch a ton of movies. They were offering six movies for the price of five, a deal I couldn't resist. The problem was, what to watch? I couldn't make heads or heels of most of the films so relied on the handy dandy guide that highlighted the feature films. I wish I could have seen some of the shorts or picked a random film or two but there was just too much to see.

While it's hard to pin down exactly what constitutes an Asian American film (something made by Asians? a film about Asians? anything set in Asia?), I definitely love that SF is such a hotbed of Asian American culture and activism. To not take advantage of these events would be criminal. So I picked out a few films, set off for a week of wonderful viewing, and had enough popcorn for a lifetime. Actually, that's a lie. I could probably eat popcorn every day of my life and still not have enough. Extra butter, in the middle and on top please!

A neat phenomenon of watching all these movies was that I didn't have any preconceptions of what I was about to see and few expectations. I didn't watch any of the trailers, didn't know most of the directors, and relied solely on a few lines of description to choose which movie to watch. It was exciting to sit there as a film opened, with no real idea of what might happen or what it was actually about. I know that's also dangerous, because you could walk into a two hour waste of your life, but aside from one exception, every film I saw was worth the time and I'd definitely recommend watching as many films as possible next year. I know I will be.

I doubt many of these movies will be available here, or even on Netflix, but I wanted to share short reviews of the stuff I saw anyway. In order of descending awesomeness.

(1) Dirty Hands (Harry Kim) - Subtitled "The Art and Crimes of David Choe" and the one film I really wanted to see at the festival. It didn't disappoint, not one bit. Choe is an amazingly versatile artist; a charismatic, crazy, and troubled soul; and this documentary captures and reveals all of it. Heck, I could watch the unedited footage of this stuff and probably totally love it. [Trailer]

(2) The Panda Candy (Peng Lei) - A gentle surprise. The Panda Candy, about two hipster lesbians (sort of) looking for love, reminded me a little bit of Lost in Translation in mood and sentiment. Unexpected moments abound, whether they be humorous, beautiful, or poignant. I'd be curious to watch it again to see how I feel after a repeat viewing. I loved the way the film was shot and composed. [Trailer]

(3) Lust, Caution (Ang Lee) - This much discussed and controversial movie from Ang Lee is probably the only one readily available Stateside. It wasn't in theaters very long, and did quite poorly here, but that doesn't mean it's not worth watching. I have a ton to say about the movie, both good and bad, but I'll leave it alone. One helpful thing to note is that Eileen Chang's translation of her short story title was actually "The Spy Ring," which is a useful tidbit. A friend let me borrow Chang's Love in a Fallen City and I highly recommend her writing. It's beautiful, simply put. [Trailer]

(4) High Noon (Heiward Mak) - A stylish movie about seven Hong Kong youths growing up without direction or conscience. The director was only twenty four when she made the movie and I was really impressed with her grasp of male relationships and her visual flair -- even if it was a bit overdone in spots. The film did drag a bit and I had a few quibbles with the last quarter of the movie but overall it was pretty good. [Trailer]

(5) Whatever It Takes (Christopher Wong) - Edward Tom is the first year principal of a high school in the South Bronx. He's passionate, involved, and extremely hard working. The school challenges its students to rise above their environment and circumstances in pursuit of higher education. The setup sounds intriguing but the documentary plays out more like a feel good story than anything that truly illuminates the struggles of a school serving an underprivileged area. The decision to focus on one particular student lent too narrow of a view to the story and I wish we had been able to follow more the students' stories. [Trailer]

(6) 24 City (Jia Zhangke) - This was highly anticipated but ultimately majorly disappointing. A mixture of documentary and staged monologues, the entire movie was just too slow moving and impossible to get into without knowing what was actually true. While I was really interested about the topic at hand -- a Chinese factory being torn down to be replaced by commercial high rises -- the documentary provided no insight or entertainment. [Trailer]

The Golden Apple

2009-03-15T04:34:00.000-07:00

If you dream it, it can happen. I dreamed of a new laptop and it arrived in a beautifully wrapped brown package the other day. Shiny, aluminum, expensive. Dreams cost money nowadays don't you know? In this case, dreams cost me close to a grand and a half and was probably fiscally irresponsible. The decision came down to: rent, laptop, travel money. The safe answer was rent. The responsible answer was travel money (2009 is shaping up to be a big wedding year). The only acceptable answer was laptop.

As Ameer pointed out to me, it's not like I'm one of those people who just lightly use their laptops. I'm on it all the time and I require speed, precision, and mouth watering goodies. The last laptop I purchased was five-ish years ago. Dinosaurs still ruled the Earth when my computer was cutting edge. I was tempted to go straight to the top of the line for maximum bang but really, I'm neither a professional graphic designer or video editor so that might have been overkill. I settled for a low end Macbook -- but juiced up the RAM and HDD -- and figured that anything faster than my driving would probably be a huge upgrade.

I also now have a video camera so we can totally hang out on Saturday nights video chatting or amusing ourselves with Photo Booth. And by "we" and "ourselves" I mean "me." Here's a short happy timeline of my computer use through the years.

Middle school - "Wow, that's an awesome green turtle, I can make it go right how?", Oregon Trail

High school - Word processing, lame AOL chat sessions with stupid made up names. King's Quest and Minotaur (amazing multi-player game)

College - Late nights in computer labs, the magic of email, building basic websites and image manipulation. Avoid Starcraft like the plague because I know it will be the death of me.

The year after college - I finally have my very own computer, I discover blogging and downloading music, I make plans to marry the Internet, I start saving for a ring. Install Starcraft and as predicted, it's the end of me.

2004 - My first laptop and my first Mac (twelve inch iBook), freedom rings and there is much rejoicing.

2006 - A new PC for me and the introduction of double (even triple) screens in my life. I'm like super productive. Super.

Now - New Macbook, to infinity and beyond.

On Rainbows

2009-03-10T04:35:00.000-07:00

My obsession with Wizard of Oz, and by extension, Judy Garland, is well documented. I don't know exactly why I have this love of everything Wizard-related. I could probably give a dozen reasons, all of them truer than the last. I liked the movie because of the songs. I like exploring the history and trivia surrounding the movie. I like thinking about how long ago 1939 was.

I liked reading L.Frank Baum's thirteen sequels. I like the Wizard of Oz story and characters as a parable for life. I like the way the story is constantly re-interpreted and re-envisioned. I like Judy Garland's rags to riches story. I like Judy Garland's voice. I cheered for her life highs and felt pained at her (many) lows. I like that her original name was Frances Ethel Gumm. There's a good chance I'm partial to brunettes and throaty voices because of Judy. Who knows?

It's nice to have random obsessions. Without them, what would give your life meaning? Certainly not life itself right? Here's an awesome Wizard of Oz related story, "Who Stole the Ruby Slippers?"

"Throughout her famously up-and-down career, which ended Elvis-style in 1969 -- an accidental overdose of sleeping pills, rigor mortis in a London bathroom -- Garland was particularly admired by gay men. She was less guarded than most stars, and they were drawn to this brassy candor. After all, being unguarded wasn't an option for gay men in Garland's day; they could only long, like Dorothy, to live in Technicolor. They secretly referred to themselves as 'Friends of Dorothy,' and took solace in Garland's apparent sympathy -- not least, perhaps, because two of her five husbands turned out to be gay. 'If you're afraid to love, if you're afraid to feel emotion, you can't know Judy Garland,' one fan tells me.
-Who Stole the Ruby Slippers?-

Watchmen (2009)

2009-03-08T16:07:00.000-07:00

This movie is polarizing reviewers. Artistic masterpiece versus incredible waste of time. I've been waiting for the movie for months, maybe a year even. And now, having sat through two and a half hours of it? I think it's better to invest a few hours into reading the graphic novel before watching the movie.

The translation from page to film is pretty accurate but there's too much context and subtext missing. I'd even suggest that having a good idea of how/why Watchmen is important in the history of comics and superheroes is necessary for full enjoyment. Don't get me wrong, I think the movie is well made and Zach Snyder did an amazing job, but I'm beginning to believe Alan Moore when he says that his work is unfilmmable.

I was worried for my fellow movie-goers who hadn't read the book. I was sure they would think the movie was terrible. Even as a superfan, I thought the pace dragged a little (but was pleased with how much wasn't cut) and the tone was too one-note. I think people are going to go into the movie thinking it's a superhero flick and halfway through, will realize that they're getting nothing of the sort. There's entertainment here, but nothing like Iron Man or The Dark Knight Returns. In comparison to the latter, I'd much prefer to re-watch Watchmen over and over though, because there's more you could unearth with multiple viewings, unlike Batman, who tries to give a nod to symbolism and meaning but is really just vapid in comparison.

In sum, the film version of Watchmen functions better as a visual companion to the book and doesn't necessarily work very well as a standalone piece. Don't watch it unless you've read it, that's what I'm saying.

Update: I take it all back. Watchmen is in (financial) trouble! Go watch it immediately. Then watch it again.

Revolutionary Road (2008)

2009-03-07T15:59:00.000-08:00

Geezes, what a movie. It's intense, it's serious, it's goddam a super scary story. A young couple stuck in suburbia and trapped in their lives, together but totally separate. The intensity of the fights between Leo and Kate are enough to make any veteran of relationship battles cringe and wince. If you've ever wondered what you might look like when you are yelling at your significant other, this movie pretty much shows you. It's ugly. And Leo is so manipulative with his words, turning every argument around on its head. It's so real it's crazy.

This is probably the best, most emotionally impactful, movie I've seen all year. I've dubbed it "my new Valentine's Day movie" because it feels like something I should revisit annually to remember what not to do. Fantastic film.

Examined Life (2009)

2009-03-06T15:46:00.000-08:00

The movie opens with a quote from Socrates, "The unexamined life is not worth living." That sets the stage for an hour and a half of watching/listening to big thinkers talk about big things. The film is technically about philosophy and could serve as that but it struck me more as an experiment in movie making. Similar to Richard Linklater's "Waking Life," the entire running time is taken up by various people walking/sitting and talking to the camera. But unlike Waking Life, the topics and charisma of (some of) the speakers didn't put me to sleep.

There's a lot to think about when coming out of the movie, but because of the rapid pace, you kind of lose the ideas that germinate while watching it. Thus, I took out my iPhone and started taking notes. Midway into the movie, an old lady leaned over and said that it was very distracting. Initially chastened, I put the phone away. Then I thought about it some more and decided that I should be able to take notes on my phone if I wanted to. I assumed she was bothered by the light so I dimmed the screen down to the minimum and continued note taking.

Some of the topics mused over and talked about: the moral obligation to not just avoid harming others, but also to help. From behind her rose-tinted glasses, one woman talked about how in our search for meaning, we need to have anxiety about our actions and decisions. There was someone noting the difference between religious evangelism ("be like me so I can love you properly") versus the ideal of cosmopolitian love ("be who you are and I'll love you as I love myself"). There was a discussion about being handicapped, whether it be physical or mental, and how that undermines and alters the idea of Rousseau's social contract.

The two most charismatic talkers of the group were Cornel West and Slavoj Zizek (the subject of the filmmaker's first movie). Zizek stood around in a landfill talking about ecology as the new religion, and how more alienation from the environment would be better for us. Mr. West used his particular brand of bebop charm to talk about how philosophizing is learning to die.

These are just some of things that came up in the movie, of course. Every utterance is probably worth discussion and while it's certainly interesting, I can definitely understand some people getting tired and falling asleep. Pump in some caffeine and stay awake!

He's Just Not That Into You (2009)

2009-02-26T03:14:00.000-08:00

I have quite a bit to say about this movie. So hang around for the ride or eject now. First off, it's well known that I'll take a seat in front of any rom-com, if only to "spoil my love life." Having had my eye on the progression of the movie's title from Sex and the City catchphrase, to book, and now to movie, I was prepared for anything. Well, one of my first friend reviews about the film came from my sister, who literally hopped and skipped out of the move in glee when she saw it last week. Then Lilly gave the movie a favorable review in her wonderfully entertaining post. So I was ready for a winner and that's what I got... sort of.

First, I was thoroughly entertained throughout, even if there were plenty of times/lines when I had to suspend disbelief more than normal. It didn't hurt that two of my top five (Scarlett Johansson and Jennifer Connelly) were prominently featured. To sum the whole movie up, I'd say it was like "Harry Met Sally" plus "Love, Actually," two movies I loved and absolutely hated, respectively. Maybe it was just the simple cut-scene interviews that reminded me of "Harry Met Sally," and just the multiple interconnected characters that were like "Love, Actually," but I couldn't shake the comparisons. To be sure, HJNTIY isn't nearly as intelligent or well formed as "Harry Met Sally," the seminal film in romantic comedy history. In fact, maybe we can blame it for all the crappy romantic comedies that have come afterwards. It was so good that it ruined 90% of the copycats that followed.

All that aside, I thought HJNTIY was really well made. Not from a cinematic standpoint necessarily but from a "we reverse engineered every romantic comedy over the past few years, spliced everything together into easily recognizable bite sized chunks/stereotypes, and then blended it all together with a dash of new ideas." It was a romantic comedy smoothie and while it wouldn't win any awards for originality, I think the movie did a good job of integrating the various storylines together (except for the Drew Barrymore one) and justified the long running time.

Plus, on top of all that, it provided some excellent food for thought, as it brought up a potpourri of romantic situations that are just dying to be dissected and reflected upon. All in all, I liked the movie. But then there's a dark side to that.

I kind of hated the happy ending. I know, I know, happy endings are a pre-req for this type of thing. But as Lilly pointed out, that wasn't the message of the book. According to an Amazon review, the book is meant "for the twentysomething career women who have been dating for a while, [and aims to share] the empowering message that a woman deserves a man who truly loves her and not one that she must constantly make excuses for." That would have been a fine message, and I'm not sure that's what we got when the credits rolled. What I heard was the more traditional "love (should) conquer all" tune playing and I didn't like it one bit. I prefer my happy endings with some bite I guess. Or at least a twist. Or at least earned.

We watched the movie with two guys and two girls. The two of us guys liked the movie infinitely more than the girls. In fact, my friend sitting next to me could barely force herself through the whole thing. Afterwards, as we stood in the recently rainy streets of San Francisco, I heard the girls' take about how demeaning and cookie cutter crazy the movie made women seem. They objected to the way all the female characters were depicted as being detail obsessed and unhinged from reality. I said that it was a natural progression of our post-Sex and the City view on how a group of girlfriends are. They said that it was an insult to compare the way these characters interacted to how Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte were. I can concede that point, I guess, since Sex and the City is a hundred times cleverer and ten times more nuanced than anything HJNTIY had to offer.

While I could take an equal stance on the merits and failures of "He's Just Not That Into You," I think the movie exceeded my expectations and there were numerous moments when it made me think about my past relationships and the relationships of people I know. There could probably be a fun game trying to figure out which combination of the characters (and couple situations) everyone most related to. And isn't a relatable romantic comedy already a success?

For the record, this is potentially a terrible movie to watch with your significant other. I imagine thousands of couple fights broke out on Valentine's Day when this movie came out. Whew! Too many of the situations hit too close to home and that's just a mess all around, unless you have a picture perfect relationship and you can just hug each other and say "Oh I'm so glad we're in a perfect relationship honey!" But that probably didn't happen, did it?

Bonus: I stumbled across this page that offers up the essentials (and story structure) for writing a romantic comedy. It's fascinating and I can't wait to see how it matches up to romantic comedies I've seen. Step four, for example, states: "At about page 50, they kiss, have sex, or say 'I love you' for the first time." How did they come up with page 50? Inteeeeresting.

The American Nightmare

2009-02-24T15:20:00.000-08:00

"The European stereotype is that Americans are greedy; older Americans stereotype younger ones as a mercenary generation out to get rich quick. What neither the Europeans nor the senior citizens understand is that young Americans want more money because they need more money. Even if they don't covet mansions or luxury cars, they need big bucks for housing, health care, and education. In the 1980s, young people sold out to enjoy a life of luxury; now they sell out to stay afloat.

...

A whole slew of retailers have grown wildly successful by noticing what mainstream economists and pundits have missed: although education and income often track together, for a whole class of people they don't. This class's incomes are usually lower than their education levels would suggest because their values lead them toward public interest work or creative pursuits. Seeking high-brow goods at modest prices, they furnish their homes at Ikea, feed their familes at Trader Joe's, and buy everything else they need at Target.
-The Trap: Selling Out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America-

I'll Be There for You

2009-02-20T01:34:00.000-08:00

You know me, I love lists, categories, and anything that involves names and rankings. Well, here's a project I've been working on for some time. Ever since seeing this NBA Archetype Hierarchy by Upside and Motor, I've been wondering how such a model could apply to friendships.

Even if you don't know much about basketball, it can help to take a look and see how it's set up. There are five tiers, each containing a certain archetype coveted -- or not coveted -- by NBA teams. As you can see, the top tier is an elite point guard or a refined big man. Think Chris Paul and Shaquille O'Neal, respectively. Traditionally, finding a true superstar at either position will set your franchise up for success if you can surround them with the appropriate complementary parts. (Ignore the blue dot that is Lebron James; he's a freak and doesn't really fit into any archetype.) Basically, the NBA Archetype Hierarchy defines the types of players that are available and then orders which ones are more valuable -- and also harder to acquire.

Using those guidelines, I thought it'd be fun to construct a friendship archetype hierarchy. Personally, I've always maintained a strict rule of fives for my friendship pyramids. Five tiers ranging from super close friends to acquaintances. Five "best" friends. Five important people to fill communication routines (in person, phone call, email, text, AIM). I've always tossed around the idea of a hierarchy, we all do, I'm sure. What I haven't done is come up with archetypes, or roles, that my friends fulfill. Well, now I have.

Introducing my Friendship Archetype Hierarchy. Keep in mind that by definition, this would have to be individualized for each person. Mine won't look like yours and vice versa. It's impossible, there is no generic template. Some people have a bigger tier three than a tier two. Some people have a ton of super close friends, some people have a few. It's all dependent on what kind of person you are and how you've structured your social circle.

The point of such an exercise is to figure out what sorts of roles, and support systems, you need in your life. I mean, sometimes when you think something is missing (friendship wise), you can't figure out what it is exactly. You miss a specific person maybe but at the same time, what you're also missing is someone to fill their niche. Not to say that people are replaceable, because they're not, but having a broad view of the sorts of niches you require for maximum happiness should illuminate something about yourself.

I mean, if friends are a huge part of filling up our happiness meter, shouldn't they deserve just as much thought and study as our careers, relationships, and families? After all, friends contribute heavily to our hierarchy of needs don't they?

Lest you think that such an exercise is frivolous and entirely narcissistic, there's a lot of ramifications for figuring out how to create friend hierarchies. Think about the current state of social networking. You may have 300 Facebook friends but wouldn't it be nice for the program to somehow differentiate between tiers? I mean, Facebook gives you a few options to do that (by changing your privacy settings) but someday soon, social networking sites will start to group your friends automatically.

"Current social networks differ from reality on where action is required: In the real world, friendships fade because of inaction: He slowly stops calling and emailing as much, you don't think to invite him to your party. No one is to blame, it happens all the time.

But in the current online world, friendships can only end by action. Someone has to make the decision to actively de-friend the other. This feels intuitively slimy, and it's a waste of effort and attention on someone who by definition you aren't concerned with."
-Friend Decay: Social Networks need passive un-friending-

Also, this blog post from Adaptive Blue talks about a "hierarchy around friendships built on trust across verticals and subject matters: I trust this person on subject matter X, and this person on subject matter Y even though the network might trust Z." That's such an awesome point. There are broad tiers but then entirely different categories and networks.

The online catch all term "friend" will soon be spliced apart into its component parts, just like we do in the real world. That's the next step for social networking sites, once they can figure out how to get around the (admittedly thorny) problem of offending people who think they're closer to someone than they are. I mean, think of the fights that people already had over their MySpace Top Eight and multiply it. Whew, that's not going to be a fun feature to implement. But it'll be more honest, and revealing, wouldn't it?

One of the key phrases that gets thrown around is "trust relationships." Fundamentally, social networking is a great idea but currently it's too invasive and broad for some people. We want to have something that allows us to maintain our trust circles while remaining open to the possibility of staying in touch with random people. It's a very hard tightrope to walk. If you go too exclusive, you get Facebook in the earlier days, and not enough users. If you get too inclusive, you get the cluster fuck that is MySpace. Will Facebook find the answer? Will something new?

I hope somebody hires me to think about the dynamics of friendship all day long. Or maybe I should have studied this in school instead of whatever the hell I ended up studying...

Coraline (2009)

2009-02-15T20:58:00.000-08:00

I'm a sucker for anything 3D, especially if it's animated. I've even got a pair of sturdy 3D glasses sitting in the glove compartment of my car, just in case some random 3D things happens to break out. I'm a boy scout of useless things. Coraline was probably the best experience I've had with three dimensional movies actually. While you'd hardly lose anything by watching it the traditional way, I love how objects and textures pop out with the glasses on. It's worth the extra two bucks or whatever it is.

The entire movie was a charming experience. I loved the look of the film, the imagination of the sets, and the story was interesting even if the moral was a bit unclear (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). There's a lot of energetic eye candy and nothing beats hearing a random little kid saying "wow" during a particular scene. The back half of the movie could certainly be quite scary though. The young girl next to me was asked by her mom if she was scared. Her answer? "I'm terrified!" Kids are cute aren't they?

Neil Gaiman is everywhere in movies these days (MirrorMask, Stardust, Beowulf, Coraline). Not that I'm complaining.

Gran Torino (2008)

2009-02-15T16:59:00.000-08:00

Well, I like me some Clint Eastwood but his much buzzed about performance isn't exactly different than anything else he's done over the past few years. Everyone likes a crotchety old guy who is handy with the steel, if you know what I mean, (earn your keep). So the movie was better than I expected but there's one nagging little thing. It's a movie about anti-racism but it throws racist remarks around all day long. And it's kind of funny. I mean, I even learned a few new terms. "Zipperhead" for example. Never heard that one and I'm not quite sure what the etymology is.

Halfway through, after realizing that many of the laughs in the movie (and there were quite a few) were generated by Clint calling people things like spook, slanty, mick, and mispronouncing ethnic names, the PC light bulb in my head flared for a bit. In the context of the movie, the overt racism was fine. Clint is a good hearted hero, even if he uses disturbing slurs and makes side comments all day long about how Asian his neighborhood's getting. He's a character and a caricature. But in real life, would you sit around as grandpa swore up and down and called people names to their faces? Hopefully not.

But I guess we let a lot of things slide when people are old (well, sort of). It's kind of funny to hear intolerant and ignorant old people mouth off, as proved by crowd reaction to the movie. The question is: should we let it slide? I mean, Miley Cyrus gets roasted for making slant eyes in a picture. Could everyone in the picture just have been joking? Are people being overly sensitive? Or should she be more aware because she's younger, has Asian fans, and is hypothetically more accountable for her actions? Was she being racist? Personally I'd have slapped myself if I was the Asian guy in the photo, the one semi-validating them simply by being an accessory. "Oh but there's an Asian there and he's okay with it!..." But who knows what the true context of the photo was.

There's always an available excuse for why people say/do racist things; unless it's over the top and obvious but racism these days is not usually overt. You have to draw your own line somewhere. Letting shit slide for age, ignorance, or context. It's a slippery slope isn't it? Choose or lose.

Related but unrelated, an old article about "Stuff White People Like" I've been meaning to share.

The Book of Revelation: Vol.1

2009-02-14T05:26:00.000-08:00

Recently, I had a conversation with someone about how she's no longer accepting applications for guy friends. It's either dating (toward a relationship) or nothing. While this may sound a bit draconian, she had a great point. Her friend archetypes are busting at the seams with platonic guy friends; males who are kind of flirty and maybe might make a move while drunk; and gray area friends who have a lot of potential and semi-chemistry but need some time to figure it all out, etc.

As a prudent woman of the recession, she realized that she's filled to the brim with platonic guy friends and has decided to shut down shop. After all, what can one new guy friend do for her that the other twenty five oldies-but-goodies can't? Nothing really. She has her guy friend to chat with on the phone. She has the one to talk about movies and books with. She has the one she calls for computer help. She has her running buddy. She's got a handful of party guys. She's got it all. More guy friends are always nice, but are they necessary?

The answer is "No," unless they are absolutely freaking A-plus amazing. And if they are absolutely freaking A-plus amazing, it's probably worth it to give them a quick date, just to see if there's maybe a spark there. Think about it. If you meet an amazing person now, doesn't your mind already go "Um, could I date this person?" Of course it does. And if it doesn't, you're a liar.

See, this is the logical extension of our increased age and maturity. We need to stop living our lives like it's our early twenties. It's not anymore. Hello, I'm in my early thirties. Nobody has time to waste anymore "waiting it out," seeing if weeds will blossom into flowers, or whatever analogy you want to use. Time is a valuable resource and if we're not using it in a goal orientated way, it's lost. Forever. I'll repeat that: Forever.

Ten years ago, you could sit around and take a few months to build a bond and then maybe lose that bond due to circumstance or lack of interest, no harm done. Now, those months could be spent nurturing your current stable of friends, interacting with the people you already know are supremely valuable and really want to spend time with.

I mean, think of it like this. When you were younger, wouldn't you go into a dinner party and maybe make an effort to meet new people, to try to engage everyone, just give it all a chance? Nowadays it's hardly rude to just go in, hang out with the three friends you came with, and then pick up and leave knowing that you're not likely to meet any of those people ever again. And that's okay because we are now more discerning and focused about who we choose to let into our lives.

Some might contend that it's best to be friends before dating. Hogwash I say. With our shortened time line in relationships, it's a wonder we conceive of any amount of time as being sufficient to find out if he/she is the right one. These days, once you've been seriously dating someone for over a year, those wedding bells will start tolling, even if it's just your phone ringer set to silent and vibrate because your parents won't stop calling to innocently ask, "How are things?!"

If you are in my age group, and especially if you're a girl, we no longer have the luxury of going though a three or four year relationship to find out if this person is The One. We're too jaded, we're too wary, and we're too damn positive that shit can always happen -- even when it seems like shit could never, ever, ever happen. We're not cynical, we're just experienced. We've had our eyes opened, we've seen too much, and we've gotten used to the impossible, for good and for bad.

I mean, really, what will you know about a person as a romantic prospect after being friends with them for a few months that you couldn't find out in six weeks of dating them? Probably nothing. And to be completely honest, it's a near fallacy to assume that the person you bought into as a friend is the same person you'll date. People have their friendship side and their relationship side. It's best to just get in there and figure out what's what before any more time is wasted. The truth must be freed and in romance it can only be freed if you shed the shackles of friendship. That's the current theory anyway.

I'm just extremely thankful that I made it before my friend's platonic cut off date. Yah, I'm in, I'm in!

Ode to Old School

2009-02-10T16:25:00.000-08:00

Do you remember a time when TV teens weren't over the top loquacious and their conversations weren't filled with repartee and sarcasm? Probably not because the past few years have presented us with any number of TV shows starring hyper aware teen protagonists. Our current TV super teens are invariably quick of tongue, prone to emotional diarrhea disguised as self psychoanalysis, and full of witty one-liners that reference obscure pop culture. Well, there was a time when this wasn't de-rigeur. In fact, that time was pre-1998, or rather, pre-Dawson's Creek.

Over my past weekend in Seattle, I was cruising a used record store (yes, they still have those, especially in Seattle) and found myself purchasing Season One of Dawson's Creek for the low low must buy price of $15. Fifteen dollars to relive my sophomore year? Absolute steal. When Dawson's Creek came out, it was ridiculed for any number of things. James Van Der Beek's giant head, Michelle Williams' not-hot-enough hot girl, Joshua Jackson's Mighty Duck past, and well, nothing was wrong with Katie Holmes -- she's proven to be a late bloomer in the crazy department obviously.

The big controversy over Dawson's Creek was how much the fifteen year olds talked about sex. Rewatching the pilot, even I'm a bit surprised at how often the young teens are openly obsessed with the topic. I must have overlooked it because, at the time, I was more focused on Kevin Williamson's dialogue and how fast it moved. Critics said it felt unreal. They accused the writers of writing dialogue that was too articulate for teenagers; stuff the writers would have liked to say back in high school, instead of what teenagers actually sounded like.

"The vocabulary of the teens can be a bit much, so many four-syllable words; for example, in one episode, heard from Dawson, 'Is the proposition of monogamy such a Jurassic notion?' How many fifteen year olds do you know that speak like that? Add to that the fact that every situation is analyzed so minutely, far more than can be realistically expected between teen to teen, teen to adult and adult to teen."
-Television Heaven review-

As it turns out, Dawson's Creek was just leading the way for the next generation of teen soaps. It laid down the framework -- with a big nod of appreciation to 90210 -- for everything from The O.C. to Gossip Girl. Before Dawson's Creek, teens were more likely to be mumbly and stumbly on the outside, even if they were quite observant and coherent on the inside (cue Kevin Arnold, cue Angela Chase). Dawson's Creek gave teens the power of adult speech and we're all the better for it.

Well, maybe only slightly better for it. The explosion in teen-adult speak probably led us down the dark and dirty path of using friends as pseudo-therapists but hey, whatever. It's about the DDTs anyway right?

I think Dawson's Creek is actually way underrated in retrospect. I rarely ever hear it referenced as a classic, probably due to how fast interest in the show waned. I mean, after Dawson and Joey finally hooked up (and broke up, and hooked up, and broke up, etc.) there just wasn't that much to see anymore. But the show went on for six seasons, probably losing prominence with each successively melodramatic season, to the point where it started to become an automatic channel flip. But without Dawson's Creek -- and Buffy -- the WB would have probably collapsed that much sooner and a whole generation of kids would have suffered. Thanks Dawson. And what the hell are you up to these days? K.I.T.!

For the record, watching the pilot episode was a musical time warp too. Paula Cole's "I Don't Want to Wait," Sophie B. Hawkins' "As I Lay Me Down," and Chumbawamba's "I get knocked down. But I get up again. You're never going to keep me down." This may have been the best fifteen dollars I've spent so far this year.

"Girl: You party?
Jen: Party as in do I like to have a good time or party as in drink and use drugs?
Girl: It's subjective."

Sitting in the Tree

2009-02-07T14:32:00.000-08:00

"My college students are romance-starved. Some of you may be asking, What has this to do with my students who are in middle or high school? I know this leap is unscientific, but I'm making it anyway: by the time your former students are midway through college and sitting in my classroom, many (dare I say most?) are tired of sex, sex, sex. They're empty, spent, and longing for seriously chaste, old-fashioned romance -- we're talking stargazing and hand-holding, the end -- and they have no idea how to find it. So now is the perfect time to introduce your students to sweet, innocent-yet-sexy romance novels. That way, when they get older, they'll have narrative models to show them how to make simple, romantic gestures (like asking someone out or setting up a first kiss), and they won't end up having a sex-life crisis in college.

Writing a kissing scene is hard. Writing a good kissing scene (or, for that matter, any romantic encounter) is even more difficult. When I was working on my first novel, somewhere in the back of my mind I knew that eventually I would have to write a kissing scene. This was a daunting thought. I blush even now just remembering that I actually wrote one! I think I may have typed it with one hand screening my eyes (you know, like, when you get embarrassed and can't stand to watch). Therefore, I stand in great admiration of any writer who can pull off a romantic scene with flair and ease."
-Donna Freitas, Be Still My Heart: A Shameless Guide to Sweet, Sexy Romance Novels for Teens and Tweens-

Pod Vader

2009-02-04T01:30:00.000-08:00

A few months ago I started getting on the podcast wagon. Although I clearly knew about them (I did a whole chapter on podcasting in the RG book), I didn't have any podcasts in regular rotation. I finally got it in gear and now I can't live without them.

Generally speaking, the podcasts I listen to are sports related. One about the NBA, one about fantasy football, a few other ESPN podcasts, and then the mighty Bill Simmons podcast. I've found that this has changed my television consumption habits. I no longer have the patience to have ESPN on in the background, I just want the information I'm interested in fed to me immediately. No commercials, no teasing intros, no need to waste time passively sucking in peripheral news.

Bill Simmons suggested that podcasts will replace radio soon, and it's quite possible. Ease of use, the low barrier to entry, and the continual segmentation of people's interests could result in an ideal landscape where you get what you want, when you want it, and from sources as professional or amateur as you'd like.

Some of the other podcasts I'm addicted to are about books (general reviews, a Twilight podcast), movies, a comics and general geeky things one, a podcast about Dungeons & Dragons, and stuff from Democracy Now!, NPR, and This American Life (also, an interesting article on Ira Glass). I'm always cruising around for new podcasts to listen to and it's entirely replaced my radio and Internet news sources.

My absolute favorite podcast is Slate's Culture Gabfest, hosted by Stephen Metcalf. It's only half an hour long and released every two weeks or so. Generally, Stephen (Slate's critic at large) is joined by Dana Stevens (Slate's movie critic) and Julia Turner (Slate's deputy editor) and they cover everything under the big umbrella of pop culture -- defined simply as anything that's popular and in the public conscience. Aside from always having interesting topics on the table, all three of them sound incredibly smart when they talk about things. They are eloquent, critical, revealing, and persuasive. Not a hint of pretentiousness or condescension.

Recent topics they've covered have included Leno and late night TV, the dire state of the publishing industry, the death of David Foster Wallace, Michelle Obama's role as First Lady and Mom-in-Chief, the mysterious relationship between Madonna and Alex Rodriguez, the NBA's Olympic Redeem Team, and the B.I.G. biopic Notorious. Awesomely eclectic right?

Each episode is typically structured around three items and then interspersed with books, articles, movies, or music they recommend. It's the type of discussion you imagine having with your smartest, most worldly, and intellectually curious friends. But realize you can't because if you knew people who could talk like this, you'd not be invited to participate anyway. Or maybe you'd be invited but as a water boy.

What's so great about this podcast is that it assumes pop culture has something significant and insightful to say. And not in a trivial, satirical, or flippant way. It's thinking and talking about entertainment in a way that justifies and validates the time suck that can happen as you sit in front of the TV or read trashy magazines. It makes me feel smarter just listening to it.

Needless to say, if you're going to explore the world of podcasts, download this one immediately.

In a coincidence, the most recent episode of the podcast revolved about a few things that we talked about this weekend in DC. First, Mike gave us the heads up about a New York Times article about female sexual desire and the Slate team opined on it last week. We also engaged in a discussion (that needs to be expanded on and continued sometime) about minorities versus whites and there's a piece in the Atlantic Monthly about the end of white demographic dominance. My real life and podcast life are coming together. Terrific!

Clash of the Titans

2009-02-01T05:59:00.000-08:00

I spent four hours Saturday night/morning watching Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal slug it out in the finals for the Australia Open. There was a time when I watched a lot of tennis. Heck, there was a time when I played a lot of tennis. Nowadays, my tennis game is confined to video games. George has a Dreamcast and we've been on a major Virtua Tennis 2 kick. It's incredible how fun and satisfying playing doubles on this thing is, even though it's a decade old game system.

Federer is often spoken of as the greatest player of all time. If he won this match, he would have tied Pete Sampras' record of fourteen Slam championships, all at the age of twenty seven. The only thing standing in his way was Nadal. Of course, as any casual tennis fan knows, Nadal is kicking some ass right now. The two of them are the definitive rivals of this generation and lately, Nadal has expanded his clay dominance to include a five set Wimbledon win over Federer that was hailed as the greatest tennis match of all time.

To be honest, I've never really seen Federer or Nadal play. I wouldn't have seen this match either except Helen got all excited at three in the morning and flipped on the television for the live broadcast. Everyone else I was with ended up falling asleep, but I kept watching because prime time for me is the middle of the night. Plus the match was just so damn good.

Throughout the whole thing, I couldn't help comparing the relationship of Federer and Nadal to Superman and Batman. All through the match I was trying to draw similarities in their games and their competitive relationship to their superhero counterparts. For awhile, I couldn't even decide which one was Superman and which was Batman. I flip flopped a few times before settling on Federer as Superman and Nadal as Batman. This comparison was pushed along by Federer's choice of blue shirt and Nadal's black (sort of) getup.

Watching Federer, it seems like he would be impossible to beat. He has every shot in the book, incredible touch from every angle, and no discernible weaknesses. He's been described as nigh invincible by writers and opponents. I read that he doesn't even have a full time coach because he's just that good.

Nadal, on the other hand, has fewer weapons at his disposal. He has blistering groundstrokes, incredible defense, a few tricks up his sleeve, and is tenacious as hell. Coming off the longest Australian Open match ever two days prior, Nadal had a dinged up thigh muscle that threatened to hurt his mobility and endurance. But while the injury was certainly a factor, it didn't prevent Nadal from prevailing in another classic five setter.

At first I wanted Federer to win because he could tie history, but as it got past the third set, I noticed I was admiring Nadal's game more and more. He just kept pushing, kept running around, and wouldn't give up. He seemed to be on his heels quite a few times but always managed to grab the momentum back. It's exactly how Batman always beats Superman. Supes gets a little frustrated because he knows logically he should crush Bats but all his crushing blows keep whiffing. He's starts to lose his mental edge and suffers from a bit of insecurity.

If you're a fan of Superman and Batman, you know that Batman almost always wins in their head to head matchups. Bruce Wayne's just a weak human but he recognizes his disadvantages and works around them, enabling him to out-think and out-hustle Superman every time. He carefully pre-plans, picks his spots, and only engages when he's sure he's got the advantage. He knows he can't fly, he doesn't have heat vision or super breath, but all those things can be negated with forethought and fortitude.

Superman's arch-nemesis is Lex Luthor but his arch-rival, Batman, is clearly the more compelling story as evidenced by fans' insatiable appetite for their battles. As the two greatest heroes in the DC Universe, they team up as often as they face off but there's always an ongoing subplot of who's better. Because of this, they make each other better in comparison and reflection, driving their "games" to new heights. Federer and Nadal have the same sort of quality about their relationship (even though they never team up) and without the other, we might not be able to fully appreciate their respective strengths, weaknesses, and legacies.

Question: If Nadal is Carlos Moya in Virtua Tennis (they both just pound the shit out of the ball), who is Federer? When we play Virtua Tennis, it's conceded that Moya and Tommy Haas are the two best characters in the game. It would be nice if virtual Haas' game was like Federer's but it's not. So my question is, who is Federer?

Cup of Joe

2009-01-28T13:21:00.000-08:00

"Erdos's unadulterated self was less real and less familiar to him than his adulterated self, and that is a condition that holds, more or less, for the rest of society as well. Part of what it means to be human in the modern age is that we have come to construct our emotional and cognitive states not merely from the inside out -- with thought and intention -- but from the outside in, with chemical additives. The modern personality is, in this sense, a synthetic creation: skillfully regulated and medicated and dosed with caffeine so that we can always be awake and alert and focused when we need to be.

On a bet, no doubt, we could walk away from caffeine if we had to. But what would be the point? The lawyers wouldn't make their billable hours. The young doctors would fall behind in their training. The physicists might still be stuck out in the New Mexico desert. We'd set the world back a month."
-Malcolm Gladwell, Java Man-

Awards Season

2009-01-23T19:39:00.000-08:00

Nominations and voting for the 2009 Bloggies have opened. I always check'em out because you can never have enough good blogs to read. This year, 8asians.com is nominated in the Best Group Weblog category. My friend Brian blogs for them but that's not the only reason to vote them up!

Also, this came out awhile ago but Fimoculous has a great list of "30 Most Notable Blogs of 2008." It was through his list that I found Molly Young, who reminds me slightly of technicolor.org. "[Molly] writes in that hyper-literate but still somehow accessibly intimate way that make all her blog posts read like entries in one of those diaries that score its author a publishing contract."

"Of all the bad things a person can be, 'boring' was my bete noire from the age of consciousness until mid-college. This is probably because I was so often paralyzed in social interactions, unable to think of anything to say or do. In fact, a good amount of the time I passed alone was spent stocking up on Things To Say. I used to keep a small notebook with reminders of funny anecdotes, news items, novelties and jokes to sprinkle into conversation. I even consulted the book (discreetly) during interactions to freshen my supply. It didn't work very well -- I often had to shoehorn unrelated sentences into topical conversations -- but it was better than being a blank.

Now things are more fluid up there, but only among those I know well."
-Public opinion is a tyrant-

Don't be alone, it might suck

2009-01-21T02:56:00.000-08:00

I have bad news for you/us unmarried people. A recent article I read is titled "Together is better? Effects of relationship status and resources on young adults' well-being." It's from the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (possibly my new favorite site/magazine if I can somehow subscribe) and it says that married is better than single. I know, totally revelationary. How'd they come to this stunning conclusion? Allow me to summarize. First, a quote from the beginning of the piece.

"Marital status has long been viewed as an important marker with respect to several measures of well-being. For a variety of reasons, married people tend to have fewer psychological problems, are healthier, and more satisfied with life than the non-married.

The proliferation of alternative living arrangements (e.g., unmarried cohabitation, living apart together, or long term relationship without cohabitation) and the increase in divorce rates have blurred the once clear-cut distinction between married and unmarried adults. Marital status is still used as an indicator of people's relational involvement, although as [a researcher] suggested, this indicator may be inadequate to capture the effects of romantic relationships on subjective well-being in modern societies.

The ambiguity of marital status is particularly apparent for young adults, because young adulthood is 'a demographically dense period'. Young adulthood is a period of life when many transitions occur in a relatively short time span. In addition, given that forming romantic relationships is a primary developmental task, it is a period in which relational experimentation is widespread. Therefore, there is great diversity in relationship types among young adults, particularly in dating and unmarried cohabitation."
-Together is better?-

Through the course of the paper, it's revealed that single people are at the lowest rung of well-being because they don't have as many resources as those who are dating, cohabiting, or married. First, let's talk about what those resources are. There are three broad categories: material, social, and personal. Material resources are things like possessions, income, education, and employment. Basically we're talking money and the things that money can buy. Or resources that will allow you to get more money, such as education. Or quick hands and low morals.

Personal resources include things like self-esteem, optimism, or neuroticism. I've been looking for a definition of neuroticism and theirs is quite good: "Neuroticism can be considered as the lack of the resource of emotional stability." People with low neuroticism are better able to cope with stress and are less negative in general. Thus, personal resources are basically things that allow you to cope with stress and deal with how unfair life is. Neuroticism was measured with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. I was too impatient to sit through all the questions so I have no idea what my results were. I probably got a C-, probably.

The last resource, social, can be simply explained by measuring a person's social web and social support network. It also includes anything that helps achieve "valued outcomes" in social situations. So if you want to be well liked, social resources can help you do that. Or help you be vilified if that's what you desire. Furthermore, there are two sub-scales for this: emotional support and instrumental support. "Emotional support taps the exchange of emotions of trust, acceptance, love, care, and empathy. Instrumental support focuses on tangible forms of support, like assistance with odd jobs."

With all that laid out, the initial hypothesis and resulting conclusion matched: Single people are sad sad people. See, it's all math. Two is better than one. More material, more personal, and more social resources are had when two people join up. The greater your access to these resources, the better off you'll be. In addition, a partner provides resources that are hard to provide for yourself. Yes, we're talking about sex. But also love and intimacy. You can love yourself but apparently that's not the same thing. After reading through the paper even I was halfway convinced marriage was the answer.

But then I got to thinking. In your previous relationships, has simply combining resources with someone actually made your life better? I mean, things like self-esteem, stress, and social circles can all be negatively affected in a relationship right? Where's the scale that measures the positive or negative effects of being in a relationship or being married. Currently my single friends are pretty evenly divided between the "I'm so happy I'm single" and "I'm depressed, I need someone" camps. The former group generally feels free and unattached, the latter group feels lonely. Clearly, the beauty of singledom is in the eye of the beholder.

While I don't want to discount the research done here, I'm philosophically opposed to its conclusion. Married isn't always better. Maybe for most people it is but some people don't necessarily want to get married. It could be possible to duplicate all of these positive resources in a single lifestyle by strategic use of friends and family right? I'd imagine that the longer someone is single, the more they build a network that provides them with resource sharing. But then again, as my mom likes to remind me, "What happens when all your friends are gone?" Um, I don't know. Buy some more? "With what material resources?" Hum, good point...

What I do like about this study is that it organizes some basic relationship needs into a simple triangle. By thinking about which of these resources you value, which ones you have an abundance of, or which ones you'd like in return, it could help you identify what your current (or future) dating life should be. I mean, I've never cohesively thought about whether or not I'm providing these resources to my partner. If I did, maybe I wouldn't fail so often? So while I must object to the "marriage is better" conclusion, I will take the study to heart and use its framework to find some answers.

Notice that the title of the study includes the phrase "young adult." That's key because this is a study that focused on young people, just like you and me. This was also done in the Netherlands and maybe those enlightened Dutch have different viewpoints than us ("The Dutch culture is rather individualistic and tolerant towards cohabitation.") so that could be a factor. Actually, the article goes through lots of moderating effects and possible flaws and exceptions but I'll gloss over those here. If you're really interested, email me and I'll forward you a copy of the thing for your own reading pleasure. But wouldn't you be better off using that reading time to hit the streets and finding that lucky someone to get married to? Happy happy joy joy...

This paper was provided to me by a friend who is in grad school and working on her fascinating thesis. I can't even talk about it because it's something so top secret and exciting that I don't want to blow up her spot. Let's just say that it's on a topic I'm very intrigued by. I can't wait till it's done. Until then, I hope to keep getting fed this sort of thing. I'll conclude with a few quotes I've recently come across. They kind of say the same thing but from opposite viewpoints.

"Girls aren't cool. They can be pretty or 'cute,' and with some serious dieting, even sexy. They can be nice. Dumb, but nice. But who wants 'nice'? You want interesting people around you. Has a girl ever introduced you to any new music or recommended a book you didn't already read in high school? Anything just slightly outside the mainstream? If so, she got it from an ex, her brother, her father. They just pretend.

Guys in long term relationships become so lame. They get sucked into this feminine sphere of TV series and nice dinners. They get less and less time to read and listen to music. Eventually they don't even miss it. They end up as understimulated, bourgeois retards."
-Reprise-

"I think marriage is an insurance for the worst years of your life. During your best years you don't need a husband. You do need a man of course every step of the way, and they often are cheaper emotionally and a lot more fun by the dozen."
-Sex and the Single Girl-

The Empire Strikes Back

2009-01-19T16:06:00.000-08:00

Leave it to Ameer [High Entropy], my gadget guru, to once again show me the light. For the longest time the biggest impediment to proper iPhone moblogging has been its absolute inability to send more than one picture at a time. Aside from being annoying, it basically means you have to upload each individual picture, log into Blogger, mess around with copy pasting some code, and then re-jigger it all back together again to have it looking beautiful and presentable. The "mobile" in mobile-blogging was completely lost.

Dann [DLMOU] recently got a G1 phone and the thing I most envied about it -- not that I envied much, ahem -- was its ability to seamlessly send more than one photo at a time. His moblog could be truly mobile because he didn't have to sit down at a computer to mess around with combining multiple posts into one. I mean, he was moblogging from the slopes, he was moblogging from the bathroom, he was a moblogging machine. He stepped up the moblogging game like five notches (along with a little app that allows him to create captions and cartoons, dammit). I feared. Just a little.

But now Ameer has discovered the app that could change all that. Presenting "Multi-Photo," which allows you to send multiple pictures with just one email. So stupid that Apple doesn't do this already but whatever. For only $0.99, this was an instant buy and so far it's the only iPhone app I've paid for.

With this wonderful new tool, my moblog is coming back to reclaim the throne. Not that it had ever vacated the throne at any point actually...

My review of Multi-Photo: It's got a pretty interface, it works as advertised, and while I can forsee problems if you don't have good connectivity, it does everything admirably. Syncing up your email account is a breeze, picking out photos is easy, and overall the thing will probably change my life. Keep in mind I've only been playing with this program for like ten minutes. By this time tomorrow -- assuming I have something fun to go moblog about in the interim -- I might get down on one knee and propose. My only complaint so far is that the process could be streamlined but seeing as the app is new, updates could fix that soon.

One awesome thing about the app is that you can control the quality of the photos you're sending. Previously, you could only get 800x600 photos from iPhone to Blogger. Now it's possible to get full sized photos to your blog without syncing your iPhone. After setup, just go to General Settings and turn off the "Reduce Image Size" and crank up the "JPEG Image Quality." Voila, 1600x1200 pictures in all their glory.

I took the liberty of conducting some tests and it seems like the slider for the "JPEG Image Quality" thing is really more appropriately thought of as low, medium, high. Turning off the "JPEG Image Quality" option seems to be key because with it on you seem to be constrained to 800x600 regardless of the quality selected. While I don't want to blow people's eyes with 1600x1200 pics all the time, I do like being able to selectively put up bigger iPhone pics -- if only for Photoshopping afterwards.

By default, the images are set to be reduced in size and medium image quality. I left it on reduced but cranked up the image quality. I'd also highly recommend erasing the Default Subject and Default Body text, that stuff is just ugly. With this app and the right setup, there is no (technological) reason to not moblog anymore. I can renew my moblog evangelism straightaway.

I'm like all sorts of excited here. Can you tell?

Update: After further testing, I'm noticing that if you just send the picture through the iPhone's regular mail, it actually looks noticeably better than through Multi-Photo. Not in the detail but the color seems to wash out when it's sent through the app. A tad disappointing, but I can work around it. My settings were at full JPEG quality with reduce image size ON.