December Deductions 2020; Day 6

 OK, today is the day you start to get annoyed with me, if you haven't already, because I'm basically going to tell you to calm down, take a breath, and treat even the rudest of people with a modicum of respect. And yes, it is a continuation of the word choice tips. 

Tip 4: Avoid Ad Hominem and other useless attacks

This doesn't have anything to do with the actions of someone else, and you are going to hate me for that. If people insult you, attack you, cancel you, lie about you, anything, you do not respond in kind if you want to continue learning. It often feels like the least fair part of trying to learn more around other people. Even before they start purposely acting like jerks, you want to act like a jerk. How do I know this? Well, I often act like a jerk completely unintentionally and people do respond in kind, but also because I constantly want to do it. I want to just slam their virtual face into facts that I know and they don't to win the argument and - obviously that's the exact wrong way to approach things. 

In case you haven't been on Twitter in the last few years, and haven't taken a Philosophy course, an Ad Hominem attack is what I discussed last week: attacking the arguer rather than the argument. Usually, the attack isn't even related to the subject matter, like pretending that correcting their grammar makes you smarter, or just insulting them. I can't tell you how many times I've had people somehow think that implying sexual inexperience somehow affected my argument. 

Oh, and I'm no saint either, this is probably the hardest lesson to actually apply out of anything I'll teach you, because it requires you to take your emotions and tell them to shut up and sit quietly in the corner of your mind while you treat the other people better than they're treating you. 

There are other kinds of fallacious attacks that tie in to Ad Hominem attacks, like what's called the "genetic fallacy." The genetic fallacy is basically the idea that a fact's merit can be entirely based on its source. Note, this is not talking about when someone makes a claim with no backing, it's most often applied, in my experience, when it comes to well known people or organizations. You are probably well aware that if you link an article from a Fox affiliate news source or a CNN affiliate news source, you're going to get replies that all too often include the word "sheep." 

That ties in with Ad Hominem attacks because one often leads to the other. If someone is angry about a claim, rather than assessing the claim's merit, they can just insult the source. "Of course someone as dumb as you watches CNN/FOX." It's very easy to dismiss claims that way, but also incredibly useless to do so. It's worth your time to judge a claim based on its merit, which includes checking multiple sources, including those you may not personally prefer. Keeps you from being in an echo chamber. 

This all leads into a discussion on circular logic, but that's a very complex subject that I will cover more in depth at a later date. I will, however, leave you with a very common example of an argument based in circular logic, so you know to avoid using it, or falling for it. It often comes up whenever someone wants to say mental health is the primary cause of a particular problem, and goes as such: 

Person A: "Why do you think they did that?"

Person B: "Well, because they're crazy!" 

Person A: "Why do you think they're crazy?"

Person B: "Well, you'd have to be crazy to do that!"

See the problem? If you break down Person A's argument, it's that a person did something because they were crazy, but the only evidence they were crazy is that they did it, so they're crazy because they're crazy. That's why it's called circular reasoning, it just goes back to itself to prove itself. Another name for this lapse in logic is "begging the question." Don't fall for this, and definitely don't use it. If you look at your argument and realize that it only supports itself, you may need to rethink your argument. 

So, to sum up: don't attack people, even if they attack you (feel free to leave the conversation though, it's probably a dry well if they're consistently attacking you rather than responding to your argument); Judge a claim based on its merit, including evidence from other sources when possible, rather than just discrediting it based on the source provided; and don't use or fall for circular reasoning. In all of these aspects, be the better person, it's your only chance of getting that "win" we talked about before, where all parties involved end up closer to the truth. 

Alright, that's enough for today. Great job getting this far. Take a breather, get something to drink, eat if you haven't lately, and let your mind chill for a bit. I'm throwing this stuff at you in a really dense and fast manner, so I'm pretty sure its exhausting. Make sure to take care of yourself even as you try to better yourself. 

As I've said before, if you're following along I will "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a great day. Goodbye! 

December Deductions 2020; Day 5

 Alright, today we're going to focus on something that's important when it comes to word choice, which is how much you can control other people's work choice.

Tip 3: Don't be an uninvited editor. 

Alright, we've all heard the term "grammar Nazi," and for some of us, we've used it to describe ourselves. If you know me, you know I've done this over, and over, and over, and over again. I've done what I thought was correcting people far too often. Worse, I've used a mistake/misunderstanding based on grammar or syntax as part of my argument; logic doesn't really work like that. 

"But if I'm trying to learn more about stuff around me, and if other people are wrong, then I can't!" Yeah, the whole point of these posts is to explain to you how to get around that. There's a distinct difference between asking for clarification and giving people unrequested "advice" or correction. I still have problems with this, because I got so used to using that as a tool to "win" an argument. Remember that if you're there to learn, you're not there to "win," you win by learning more, not by trying to prove the other person wrong. If you happen to convince them to learn more and maybe change their mind, great, but don't make that your singular goal. I'll explain that in more detail at a later date, but the short version is you'll just end up upset and disappointed. 

If you think there's a misunderstanding or miscommunication happening, don't push for correction, ask for clarification. Make sure to make it about your own understanding, rather than their actions or intelligence. Here, I'll give you a list of options and explain why they're more or less preferred. 

"Correction*" 

That one's dismissive, and will almost always result in the perception of you being there for a fight, and that you think you're better than them. It also has the direct effect of pushing anyone who doesn't speak English as their first language, or doesn't speak academic English primarily, out of the conversation. Just, please don't do this. 

"I think you meant/ did you mean 'Correction?"

This one's not as bad, but it still gives off that feeling of condescension and superiority. It also has that same silencing effect on people who don't speak your preferred dialect. 

"Do you mean 'correction'?"

Much, much better, but if the other person is already emotionally charged, this is still pretty likely to result in an escalation of conflict. 

"I'm sorry, I think I might have misunderstood. Can you explain what you meant when you said 'correction'?" 

That one puts the fault on your lap, leaves them open to react as if you're not attacking them. It does take up more time/character limit, but it's the most likely to result in a more reasonable conversation in my experience. 

Finally, let's talk about how using it as an argument doesn't work. The purpose of an argument is to counter the actual content of one of the previous claims, not to counter the person who presented it. Under the most strict rules of philosophical debate, who presents an argument doesn't really matter. Sure, expert opinion relies on expert credentials, but that's generally just evidence for a claim, rather than the claim itself. When you choose to try to make an argument out of correcting someone, you're basically attacking the arguer rather than the argument. It's a low blow that only serves to derail reasonable conversation. 

Why does that matter? You can't get good information out of people who are pissed at you. If you want to learn more, to become better, to get the information so you can analyze it and choose whether it's reliable or needing to be rejected, you need it to be as reliable as the source of it can provide, which means you need to treat them well. That, and they're you're fellow person, often your fellow citizen of the same nation, the same community, you need to learn to work together. 

Tomorrow's post will be about a similar subject to that last paragraph, the concept of ad hominem attacks. I hope it's helpful enough to clean up at least a few of the debates on the internet. 

Regardless, you did good today. Take a moment to relax, and remember that. You're not a bad person, and you're even working to make yourself better. You deserve to feel good about that, okay?

Alright, as I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a good day. Goodbye! 

December Deductions 2020; Day 4

 Day 4: Words Matter Chapter 2 - Different Definitions

This may seem a bit like a rehash of yesterday's piece on vernaculars, but it's important enough that I felt the need to spend a full day's post focusing on it, so here we go. 

Tip 2: Be Accurate, Be Precise, Be Aware Of Other Definitions. 

Why is that all one tip? Because it's all one concept. A lot of the discussions about important events and concepts today fail in a very, very important way: they don't treat their words as important as the concept requires. When you're talking about what to get for dinner, there's no reason to freak out about being precise. It's not going to really affect the discussion if you call both Taco Bell and a local, family owned restaurant that specializes in Latin-American cuisine "Mexican Food." It's simply just not that important. 

Now, when we're talking about the rights and liberties of millions of people, about making cultural changes to make the world a better place, or about just about any other socioeconomic issue that requires either a governmental or mass response to fix, the importance goes up. In those conversations, even though we often have them among people that can't really change anything, accuracy and precision are much more important to avoid miscommunication and misunderstandings. 

Let's cover one such misused and abuse word in recent years: "socialism." I'm going to try to keep from pouring into what "socialism" actually is, because that's a long discussion that doesn't have much to do with word choice, but I will focus on what it's not, and why it's use in Western politics has caused such a problem for a lot of people. To be brief: socialism is an economic system, not necessarily political or governmental, in which the "people" own what are called the "productive assets." That's it. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Medicare, social security, food stamps or anything else like that. 

People think it does though. Why? Because politicians and their allies largely misused the word throughout the cold war and beyond. They took a look at every social program, and called it socialist. Even today, both parties use the term socialism to describe things like tax cuts to corporations, government funded healthcare, and even government apologies for past actions. The thing is, for the most part, those are social programs, but they're not socialism. They're not changing how our economy functions on a basic level, they're changing some details about how we're running it. 

Why does this matter? Because "socialism," like so many other words that are affected by today's tip, is used not to convey information, but to cause an emotional response. We used to call these kind of things "buzzwords" or "loaded" because they really muddy the water of a reasonable discussion. If you want to learn more about the world around you, or help others learn it, don't appeal to emotion. Emotions can be wonderful things, and they can even give us some information about ourselves, but they're not useful when it comes to learning or making decisions. I know that sounds harsh, and if you don't believe me go ask a scientist or philosopher that you trust, and feel free to come back here later. 

The key to avoiding those pitfalls of emotion is to seek out accuracy and precision in terms. Part of that comes from using more accurate terms, like instead of using "socialism" as a blanket term, focus in on what you're discussing. Is it a single-payer healthcare system funded by the government? Maybe use "universal healthcare." That kind of thing. Accurate terms tend to be more professional or academic in nature, and tend to be longer, but they're worth having at your disposal, because if you know someone will immediately shut down at the thought of "socialism," which is kind of what the word has been used to do for a while now, then focus on the details, and maybe they'll be more willing to discuss why they honestly think there's a problem with it. 

When seeking to be precise in a conversation, the most important thing to do is confirm that you're working with the same definitions for key terms. If someone tells you that they hate "Obama-care," for instance, ask them to elaborate on it. What they may hate is the idea that the mandate that came with it hurt so many people who had to choose between useless but still expensive healthcare plans or paying a fee at the end of the year. Or it could be that they hate the fact that the government is deciding what people can or can't do with their money. 

Getting those key terms down pat will help you both communicate and understand better, and instead of a discussion being an argument where one person has to win, it can become a debate where, by responding to each others concerns and counter points, both of you end up closer to the truth than you started. But if you're using a word to mean something while they think you mean something completely different, you're going to end up having a hard time communicating at all. It's worth the extra time and effort to confirm the definitions. If nothing else, it may show the person you're talking with that you legitimately care enough to want to understand where they're coming from, rather than just being there to pick a fight. 

Finally, be aware of common terms that have different definitions. Loaded terms and buzzwords are a big one, because they'll often be used to mean different things by different subcultural media, whether that be a news organization, a social media site, or even just a regional difference based on where someone grew up. Over time, learn to identify the words you use that you have a definition for that doesn't necessarily match the common usage. If you've been following along so far, you've seen me define a bunch of terms because I've found that how I use them can be confusing without doing so; that's a practice you can use to avoid miscommunication. 

Alright, I think that's enough for one day. Let's quickly sum up and head out. Today's tip is to use precise terms to avoid miscommunication, open up the conversation by asking how someone is using a term that may not be in line with what you expect, and be aware of the times you do the same. Reducing miscommunication is just a generally good thing to do, so hopefully this all helped. 

Have a great day everyone, and if you're keeping up with all of this nonsense, I'll "see" you in tomorrow's post. Goodbye!

December Deductions 2020; Day 3

 Day 3: Words Matter Chapter 1 - Vernaculars

No, this is not me trying to get you to realize that the old "stick and stones" rhyme is ridiculous (it is, but that's not for today). There's a big problem with a lot of the dialogues about important issues that can skew our understanding of it very easily, and that's word choice. 

On the surface, word choice seems like a small thing. Using synonyms seems like a good way to keep what you're saying from being repetitive, and an explicative here or there is just emphasis. In a conversation between people that already understand each other, that's pretty accurate, it doesn't matter that much, but a lot of the stuff we're discussing these days happens to be with people we generally don't know that well, who we can't read well, and often who we don't even see, just see what they type. 

There are a lot of tips and tricks I've learned about word choice, so this one is going to be a bit long, but I'm going to try to keep it as simple as possible. This is going to be broken up to a few days because otherwise this would be way, way too long. Each day I'll try to just do one tip about word choice until I've run out of them, and then on to the next concept. They all build on one another so they can't really be put in a good order, so I'm just ordering them based on which one I feel like writing about next. 

Tip 1: learn to identify vernaculars

I'm going to oversimplify this, so if you're intrigued by this concept, please look deeper than what I write. Vernaculars are kind of like different sets of internal dictionaries. If you go to the reference section of a major library, you'll see things like Webster's Modern English Dictionary, but also things like medical dictionaries, legal dictionaries, and dictionaries for just about every professional or academic discipline out there. A vernacular acts as our way of using those without us actually using them. 

Let me clarify a bit. When you're speaking to a friend informally, you're using what I would refer to as a "colloquial vernacular", which basically just means everyday speech. If, however, you were writing an essay for a class or a report for your boss, you'd likely use an academic or professional vernacular, meaning you'd choose different words based on a set of more precise definitions, usually. Every professional and academic discipline that has experts in it has a vernacular, and they often overlap with related disciplines. They're not as scary as I make them sound, either. 

If you got through a significant portion of schooling here in the USA, you're already somewhat aware of different vernaculars, but you wouldn't use that term for it most likely. You're aware that when speaking to your teacher in class, you talk differently than you do when speaking to your friends outside of class. That's a basic version of your own academic vernacular versus your colloquial vernacular. If you went to college and found that you had to use terms differently based on what kind of class you were doing the work for, you came across different academic or professional vernaculars, like using terms in an anthropological context versus using them in a biological context. 

Now, before I go into why this helps, let me be sure to clarify one very important bit: my use of the term vernacular is not universal. So far in my experience, I've also seen the terms "lexicon," "dialect," and even just "word choice" used to describe them. I choose "vernacular" because the term "professional vernacular" is part of the academic vernacular we all are supposed to be taught here in the USA, so it's usually pretty easy to explain what I mean. 

Learning to identify what vernacular a person is using gives you a sort of foundation to better understand meanings that may be more subtle, or may be misleading due to context. A good example of this comes in the form of legally important accusations. You won't see legitimate news organizations refer to someone who shot someone else as a "murderer" until after a trial has concluded, because "murderer" has a legal definition that requires conviction. They may use the term "alleged murderer" or "gunman," so they don't technically misspeak and commit an act of defamation that can get them sued. You will, however, see a lot of people use "murderer," "terrorist," etc. For that same kind of person because in informal speech defamation isn't as big an issue. 

This also comes in handy when you're looking at how experts and media organizations treat various claims. One thing I've seen a lot recently is people claiming that the media or experts are being too soft on someone because they use non-accusatory language, like I mentioned above. That narrative exists to discredit the news for following legal standards that keep them from being liable for any losses the person they're referring to may suffer due to their coverage of the event in question. Just because an expert, whether they be a police officer, a lawyer, a scientist, or a journalist, doesn't call an alleged criminal a "criminal," doesn't mean they're being nice to the accused, it just means that they're following the law. If you're trying to understand how that relates to colloquial speech, just ask yourself the question of "what are they trying to say happened, but can't say directly because there's legal stuff involved?" Usually the narrative of a media organization is pretty clear when you're looking at the full coverage. 

So, to summarize and even further simplify: learn to see what professional or academic context that the other person might be using, because it can help you understand them, and help you choose your own words better. Avoiding miscommunication is the goal there. Also, be aware of common professional vernaculars, like those used by media organizations due to legal concerns. That will help you better understand what is being said, and later on, it'll help you identify bias (that will come much later this month). I know it sounds daunting, but just like everything else I've written about so far and will be writing about, this is not something you need to put a lot of worry into. You're not going to learn it all in one day, in fact a lot of these you can only really get down pat by failing through miscommunication and facing the consequences, but I'm hoping that by having these concepts introduced to you, you'll see those failures as what they are, simple, forgivable failures that you can learn from and grow, rather than something you either have to pretend didn't happen or something to feel deeply ashamed about. 

You're going to be okay. None of what I'm saying is of universal importance. These are just tools that I've found helpful in learning about the world around me, and in learning about myself, so please, be at peace. Take a breath, let it out, and take a moment to try to relax a little. I know this stuff is stressful, I've been where you are, to some extent, when I was learning these myself. If you can, try to see these posts as icing on top of the knowledge and experience you already have that has gotten you so far in life, not something that will save you from a looming absolute destruction. They will hopefully make your life a little easier, but if you don't get them right away, or if you struggle with them for a while, that's not going to cause a huge amount of harm. You'll be okay. 

That's all for today. Please, have a wonderful day, and if you're keeping up with all this, I'll "see" you tomorrow. Goodbye. 

December Deductions 2020; Day 2

 Day 2: Universal and Existential Modifiers. 

OK, the topic name sounds scary, but it's not that bad, I promise. We'll cover the vocab, and then the application. 

A "Universal Modifier" is basically was we use to note a statement about all instances of something. A simple way to put it is that Universal Modifiers come in the form of "In all cases of ____." Like If I said all humans are mammals, that's a universal statement. Likewise, if I said no humans are reptiles, that is also universal. How, because it's still breaking down to "In all cases of [something being a human], it is not also a reptile."

A "Existential Modifier" is what we use to note a statement that is not about all instances. It breaks down to "In at least one case of _____." Examples: There are people that are fat, and there are people that are not fat. Two existential statements. 

Now here's where it comes in more handy: the counter to any universal statement is an existential statement, and vice versa. If you're playing "Never have I ever," you experience this directly. The claim could be, for instance "never have I ever eaten a gumball." To counter that claim, you just need to show that the person claiming it had eaten a gumball at least once. The opposite is true as well. The claim that "I walked on water" can be countered with "no one walks on water." It can also be countered with "no you haven't," which is also a universal. That one breaks down to "In all cases of [me possibly walking on water], I have not walked on water." 

There is one generally applicable kind of universal statement that can be proven, those that are impossible to be false. Often this is stuff that's true by definition, like my universal statements about humans. By definition, a human is a bipedal mammal of the species name "homo sapien." Therefore, by definition, anything that fits that definition is a mammal. It's impossible for it not to be true. The same works for "all squares are rectangles," since, by definition, any square also meets the requirements of the definition of rectangle, but it also happens to have four equal sides. I point this out so you don't get confused when people are able to prove some universals, but remember that generally those that can be proven are proven through reason alone, rather than needing to seek physical evidence of it. Or just forget this paragraph, I fully admit it's confusing, and I apologize for that. 

Now, if you remember yesterday's post, about the burden of proof, these come in especially handy. See, you can't prove a universal, but you can disprove one. You can't disprove an existential, but you can prove one. That will help you figure out who had the burden of proof: who's claim can be proven. If someone claims "I've been robbed!" the counter is obviously "no you haven't." Now, the person who claimed that they'd been robbed just need to prove that they, in fact, have been robbed once, so the burden of proof is on them. 

However, in reality and law things get messier. See, by countering the claim of "I have been robbed" with "no you haven't," you've also implied "you have lied in this case." That's a very specific existential, and in considering how it might affect court of law or even the court of public opinion, things get murky. It's possible that the person can't *prove* that they've been robbed, but they have evidence to support it (missing valuables, injuries, having traveled through an area that experiences a high rate of violent crime, etc.). In your counter, you then have to provide evidence to support your assertion that they have lied. Since you can't disprove that they've ever been robbed, you can try to find evidence that disproves some of the details, (video footage of the alleged time and location, an alibi for the accused, etc.). What I've just described is a very simplified version of how a criminal trial works, with the prosecution being the person alleging that "I have been robbed" and the defense being the person alleging "no you haven't"; or vise versa if the alleged crime is filing a false police report rather than robbery. 

So, the way this particular tip/trick helps is that by learning to identify whether a claim is universal or existential, whether it's about all of something or at least one of something, you can better understand what claims people are trying to prove, and what claims they're not, because they can't. That alone won't necessarily help you get closer to the truth, but it will help you learn how to assess the evidence being presented. And also, please remember, even though in logic we know we can't prove universal statements, often people will ignore logic and insist you can. Please don't fall for it. "Proving a negative" is a form of proving a universal, so don't let people insist that you have to prove something never happened, or something can't happen. 

December Deductions 2020; Day 1

For December, I'm going to try something a little different. I'm going to share with you some of the tips and tricks I've learned and use regularly to help understand what's going on in the world, to help identify biases and bad faith arguments, and to get to the truth on matters that are otherwise controversial. I won't say any one works amazingly, or even that all together they'll all work perfectly, but they've helped me get past some issues that I've seen far too many people get stuck on in recent years. 

Day 1: 

Today I want to explain what "burden of proof" or "onus of proof" refers to, and a basic explanation of how it works in both philosophy and law. Again, this is very basic, especially when it comes to law, the concept becomes much more complex and has a lot more issues involved. 

The Burden of Proof is a concept of who in a debate or argument should actually provide proof for a particular claim or counterclaim. The most basic working version of this is that the person making the claim that something is, has been, or will be, must provide the proof, and so the burden of proof is on them. For instance, if you allege that someone you know committed a crime, you must provide evidence to support that; you cannot merely assert that they must prove it didn't happen. 

This brings up a very important concept that people really do need to know: you can't prove a negative. That literally means you can't prove something never happened, and in most cases, can't even prove that a particular claimed event didn't happen without really explicit detail on that event. Using the example above, the person you claimed to have committed a crime can't prove they have never done so. They can provide evidence that might call yours into question, but they can't prove they never did anything like that unless they have some irrefutable record of their entire existence, which as of yet is still impossible. Saying they need to prove it didn't happen is saying they need to prove a negative, which is impossible. If you ever see someone respond to another person asking for evidence by saying "well prove it's not true!" you can reasonably assume that they lack the necessary evidence to prove their claim, and are hoping that since the other side literally can't prove their claim can't be true, that the possibility of it's truth is enough to carry their argument. 

Just a quick rule of thumb on that last bit: if something is possible, that doesn't mean it's probable/likely to be true. If something is probable that doesn't mean it necessarily happened. Be aware that claims are not black-and-white in this particular area, something can be possible, and even probable, and still not have happened. Look for evidence about what actually is, rather than what could be. 

Let me know if this kind of thing interests you. I'm going to try to keep this up throughout December, or at least as long as I have tips and tricks to share, but if it's really just not going to help anyone, I might not bother. 

In any case, have a great day, and I'll try to post another one tomorrow. 

My (Emotional) Response To 60-Minutes COVID-19 Long-Haulers

 A few people have been sharing the piece by 60 minutes about COVID-19 Long Haulers, linked below. The following are a few reactions I have. They are no researched, they are not based on my usual high standards of sources or even reason, so take it all with a large grain of salt, but I thought it might be helpful for those to understand the perspective of an already disabled person, specifically myself as a disabled veteran, to the information presented. 

My first reaction was essentially bitter irony. These people are describing symptoms that I and other people I love and know have been forced to deal with for years with little or not help from the outside world. A dark, angry part of me thought, "well, maybe now you can understand what it's like to be one of us, disabled in a way that's not easily seen." The fatigue, the inflammation, the headaches, the tremors, the loss of balance, the issues with memory and cognition, I've had to deal with all of these since before my discharge in 2014, and they've only gotten worse since, but the official statements from the parts of the government that are supposed to help me amount to essentially, "we think you're lying." They can't see anything on the MRI's. They can't see anything on the X-rays. They can't understand why I'm not just doing exactly what they say I should be doing, so they deny me any semblance of help beyond what they *can* see clearly. With the VA, that means a partial disability rating. With SSDI, despite my having paid into it and thus being entitled to it legally, I have received nothing but disrespect, discrimination, and denials. My story in that case isn't even remotely unique, tens of thousands of people have died waiting for SSDI or VA benefits to meet their needs, not charity, but stuff they earned. 

My second reaction was one of anger. It doesn't take long while reading the article or watching the video before you realize that the narrative of a "99% survival rate" is bullshit, as is the narrative that "only those at high risk need to be protected." One, I and everyone I live with is at a significantly higher risk than average, though not at the highest risk. Two, I am dead center in the median age for these long-haul symptoms. I can barely function day-to-day as it is, if I end up with symptoms like those described in this piece, I won't be able to do even the barest minimum to keep myself alive. Without a massive amount of help, I'd die slowly, likely due to starvation or dehydration, in my bed knowing that the rest of my family will soon follow. If you think you support the troops and veterans but don't wear a mask, you don't support the troops and veterans. You hate us because you'd rather your comfort over our lives. Even if it's just one veteran you kill, one life is more important than your comfort for the fifteen minutes you spend shopping, Karen. 

My third reaction was one of sincere awe and inspiration. Hearing the account of the doctor who, while being a long-hauler herself, pushes through everything to keep working and keep helping, was inspiring. What she described as how her day would end, severe headaches, painkillers, and curling up and hoping everything will be okay when you wake up, describes much of my life in the last few years. It's inspiring to me to see that someone is still fighting through all that, possibly as bad as I have to or maybe a bit worse, and still pulls a full shift at her job. I can't even get through more than a couple hours of concentrating on something without being done for the day, but someday I hope to at least be as strong as she is, so that I can go back to work. I hope, but without the help I was promised as a veteran and as someone who paid my share of payroll taxes, hope is all it is, not an expectation. 

My fourth reaction was another set of anger, because they are unintentionally pushing a broken narrative that many "hard science" types have been pushing for much longer than I have been alive. "All in your head" is a dangerous narrative, inaccurate and harmful. It literally kills, because it's the narrative that all too many doctors believe when trying to diagnose someone. Psychological and Neurological symptoms are not separate from one another, nor is the body separate from the brain. There is nothing that is simply "all in your head." Even the things that originate from a problem in the brain, like psychosomatic pain or migraines, are not all in your head. They immediately affect other symptoms, starting with the nervous system, but quickly affecting the endocrine system, the gastrointestinal system, muscles, other organs, even skin. Even if this was "all in their heads," it's not a lie, it's not fake, it's something real that needs to be treated as such. Frankly, any doctor who thinks that they can simply explain something away as a symptom of a psychological disorder and thus refuse to acknowledge it except to tell the patient misunderstood oversimplifications of coping techniques should probably go back to school for a year or two, and learn how psychology and neurology overlap, and how neurology affects the entire body. It's infuriating that in order to be taken seriously, they feel they have to repeat that phrase, "not all in your head," thus making it even harder for people like me to get any form of help. 

The long and short of it can be summed up with a few less than charitable phrases that went through my head: 

 - Congrats, you're dealing with less than half of what I will deal with for the rest of my life as the world refuses to even acknowledge my pain, and you'll get much more help than I ever will because the cause for your suffering is a buzzword. 

- Wear a damn mask. Your idiocy is killing people, and making other people's lives not worth living. Believe me when I say it's better to be dead than to wish you were dead, and it's better still to be neither, and by not wearing a mask you're forcing people into those first two states. Murderer. 

 - Wow, maybe I can get there someday. 

 - Will you please listen!? Your head is part of you, your psychology affects everything about you, stop saying "all in your head" as if that's somehow disqualifying as a problem!

That's all. Again, take this all with a huge grain of salt. This is more emotional than reasonable, but if it helped you or anyone else to better understand the pain a lot of people are going through, whether it be from COVID-19, psychological issues, other disabilities, or anything else, I'll count that as a win. 

Link to the article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-long-haulers-60-minutes-2020-11-22/

Why I'm Optimistic About Microsoft Owning ZeniMax

 Recently Microsoft acquired ZeniMax, which is the parent company of Bethesda, the company that has made many of my favorite games, most notably the new Doom games, the new Wolfenstein games, the first person Fallout games, and the entire Elder Scrolls Series. Almost immediately, there were reactions ranging from "this is the end of good games" to "This is the best thing ever." Now, I'm not an extremist on almost any concept, but I do think this has some really good potential and will actually be pretty good, but let me explain why. 

First, let me admit that I thought this was a horrible idea when I first saw it. I'm not fond of acquisitions for acquisitions' sake, and that's what I thought this was, just a way for Microsoft to get more of the pie. Oh was I wrong. There was an amazing amount of thought put into this acquisition, and I am legitimately excited for what Microsoft is bringing to the table. However, to understand all of that, we're doing to need to explore the other things Microsoft has done in recent years. 

Around a year ago, I got a free trial of "Xbox Game Pass" from Taco Bell. I found out that it works on PC, which is my only mode of gaming for the time being, so I was glad and gave it a shot. It was, by far, the best free trial I'd ever had. Let me explain how this works: for a monthly fee, you get access to pretty much the entire Microsoft Game Studios library, which includes a lot of great games like the Master Chief Collection of Halo games, Obsidian's "The Outer Worlds," and around 100 other titles, all that you can download onto your PC, or Xbox, depending on what you have and what subscription you went for. If you just want the PC-only or Xbox-only versions, it's $10 per month. Back then, they also had the "ultimate" version in its infancy, which allowed for you to have the same games on both PC and Xbox for $15 per month. Like I said, I got to try it for free, and I personally consider it well worth $10-$15 per month if you have time and interest in gaming. That's piece number one, the existence of the subscription-based "Netflix of gaming" Xbox Game Pass. 

As we all know, a new generation of gaming-focused consoles is just on the horizon, literally a few months away. Sony is bringing out their PlayStation 5 in both disc-ready and digital only versions, while Microsoft originally just announced the Xbox Series X, a digital-only console that will have the capability to play next-gen games at 4k resolution with 120fps. If you're not familiar with that terminology, it means they'll run really, really well and look really, really good. It was priced at $500, which makes it a good competitor for the PS5 in regards to price. But a few weeks ago, they switched up their offering. Yes, the $500 Series X will still be available in November, but so will a $300 version called the Xbox Series S, which maxes out just above 1080p at 120fps, and is overall just a bit weaker than the Series X. Clearly, this is meant to compete with the equally priced Nintendo Switch for more casual gamers. I like the idea personally, though I haven't owned a current-gen console in years, and don't exactly think I'd be buying one outright anytime soon. 

Then a couple weeks ago, they released information on what they're calling "Xbox All Access." This is a subscription service, which includes game pass ultimate, which is normally $15. However, for a total of $25 per month, you also get to rent a Series S, or for a total of $35 per month, you get to rent a Series X. No start up costs, just the subscription, though you do need to sign a 24 month contract. So doing the math, if you get the $25 per month series S, you're paying for the Game Pass Ultimate, plus $10  per month, for 24 months. That's $240 for a $300 console, and all you sacrifice is the trade in value of the console, which after two years I would expect to be less than $60 anyway. Mixed with the fact that Microsoft is basically building specialized PCs with a proprietary operating system, rather than extremely specialized hardware like older consoles, and there's a distinct possibility that by the time your 24 months is up, you'll be able to start a new, similarly-priced contract for an updated console. Essentially, it's planned obsolescence without the bulk. 

Why does this affect me? Like I said, I don't see myself justifying a $300 or $500 purchase all at once, but I could see myself getting Game Pass Ultimate, and if I could afford that, I could probably afford the $10 per month extra for the Series S. Now, my laptop is getting older, and because I'm disabled, I'm not going to be able to replace it to keep up with next-gen games, so it's not likely that I'll be able to play some of the newer games coming out, which makes me a little sad. But the Series S is made for those games. I don't need 4k resolution, I've been playing on 1080p for years, and 120fps is literally four times as fast as my current monitor. That, and the last few Xboxes have all been compatible with keyboard and mouse, so I expect the Series S and Series X to work similarly, so I get a very similar experience with it. So I could get next-gen gaming without breaking the bank or having a box that's useless to me after two years anyway because a new console comes out and the new games don't work on the old one. 

But, as Billy Mays would say, there's more! Microsoft will be including the vast majority of games in their library in the Game Pass, as we know, but they've also made a deal with EA to get Game Pass Ultimate members a free EA play membership so they can play the 60 game EA library, including the Sims and Titanfall, as an example. But wait, there's still more. Microsoft owns Obsidian, which means that The Outer Wilds and any other Obsidian games come with on their launch day, which is awesome. But wait, there's still more. With the purchase of ZeniMax, Microsoft has pledged that, outside of PS5 exclusives already negotiated with Bethesda, all future Bethesda games, including The Elder Scrolls 6 and Starfield, will be available in Game Pass Ultimate on their launch day, so you get those great games at no extra cost.

That's why I'm excited, I may actually have access to next-gen gaming, and new games, without breaking the bank. There are some caveats, but there are always caveats. It seems like this is going to be a good deal for the consumers, and it's a good deal for Microsoft because they get the Bethesda library in Game Pass Ultimate without having to pay licensing fees. On Bethesda's side, they get steady funding even when they haven't had a game come out in a year or two, and a ready market for their games. 

Finally, I want to cover some fringe benefits for us gamers that may come with this. The first is that the Windows Store is still leagues better than the Bethesda launcher, so I would *love* to see Microsoft just migrate our accounts over and stop making me use that stupid launcher. Still not as good as Steam, but Steam's a juggernaut there. The second is that Bethesda games will be largely cross-platform compatible, which should allow for saves from PC to be transferred to Xbox, and vice versa. And the third, which I am most excited about but also know is the least sure, is the fact that now that Microsoft owns both Obsidian and inXile Studios as well as the Fallout IP, we can get some really great Fallout games that have more of a feel of the originals. Obsidian made Fallout New Vegas, which was a great game because unlike the Bethesda Fallout games, you could literally be anything you wanted to be in New Vegas, at least as far as ethics was concerned. That's not really possible in Fallout 3 or 4. InXile Studios made Wasteland 2, which is essentially what would have happened if the original isometric Fallout games had continued, rather than being turned into first person games. I'd love to see both of these studios get to play with the Fallout IP. 

That's it. That's why I think it's a cool idea. Sure there will be downsides, but for now, it's looking good. 

The Problem With Viral Social Media Math "Problems."

 Alright, it's time for a lesson on mathematics and data analysis. 

If you've been on social media for a while, you've probably seen "math problems" like the one below: 

1+1+1+1 = 4

2+2+2+2 = 16

3+3+3+3 = ?

This is an attempt at what in mathematics is called a "sequence," and claims to have a singular answer. Many people guessing will just be told "no" or "you're wrong." This type of problem has been used a lot in recent years to "prove" how children are often more intelligent than those with a full education in mathematics, which would be very strange if true, if not outright depressing. If children are truly more intelligent than those with educations, then they should be running things, but every time we try that kind of experiment, it doesn't work well. Go ask parents about what happens when kids get to decide what's for dinner, how chores work, or what financial priorities are. 

But I digress, the point here is that this is not a legitimate mathematics problem with a single solution. There are multiple solutions, and in fact multiple versions of this exact problems. The way a sequence problem is supposed to work is that it provides all necessary data to extrapolate a single solution, not provide just enough data to stumble across the one "correct" solution among many. Let's look at this one here. 

So, it's clear the first line is directly accurate, but the second requires more. If we assume the base difference, that there's a multiplication by two, then we have to look at the first line and see how that compares. If we simply assume that each line is multiplied by the number present within it, then the solution would be 36, as (3+3+3+3)3 = 36. However, another solution that allows for the first and second lines is not to simply multiply by the same number, but rather to break down each line from x+x+x+x to (x+x)(x+x). The first two lines remain the same, but the solution becomes 81, as (3+3)(3+3) = (9)(9) = 81. 

Many such problems also claim to require one to extrapolate nonexistent previous lines, or extrapolate based on that lack of existence, so we could consider the rule to be (x+x+x+x) * (1/2 * previous sum), which would give us the answer of 48. Or perhaps (x+x+x+x)+(2 * previous sum), which would give us an answer of 44. And the problem is, due to the lack of mathematical logic common to these problems, those are all equally likely solutions. When these questions are asked, those asking them are given a solution that is not the most simple, which in this case would have likely been 36. If I had to guess, I would say that those using this particular "problem" would insist on 81. It's completely arbitrary. 

Why does this matter? Because otherwise well-meaning, but under-educated, teachers have been known to use this kind of problem in the classroom. This teaches the students that the rules of mathematics are not logical, but arbitrary. There *are* ways to use problems similar to this to teach students about the many different ways mathematics can work, but none of them involve a single arbitrary answer with no leeway. As proof, I will explain how to fix this problem so it's actually useful. 

Instead of it being as shown above, remove the operators, in this case, the plus signs, add in your arbitrarily chosen solution, and include necessary instructions, as shown below:

[ ] 1 [ ] 1 [  ] 1 [ ] 1 [ ] = 4

[ ] 2 [ ] 2 [  ] 2 [ ] 2 [ ] = 16

[ ] 3 [ ] 3 [  ] 3 [ ] 3 [ ] = 81

Each row of operators must be the same. 

That will give students the ability to demonstrate their knowledge of the order of operations and all mathematical operators to provide a reasonable solution, a single answer using mathematical logic. On the downside, you don't get to play "gotcha" with college graduates because your 8 year old students got the answer right and they didn't, but at least you're not teaching your students that mathematics only matters when it matches an arbitrary set of rules that depends on the person giving the problem. 

Dunkaroos, The Original, The Remake, And Dollar Store Delights.

 If you were like me growing up, prepackaged snacks like Dunkaroos were part of your childhood diet. Granted, Dunkaroos were not a common thing for my family, but we did get them from time to time as special treats. So, like many of us, I was extremely excited when Betty Crocker, the company that made Dunkaroos and owns the rights to the snack, announced that they would be returning to shelved in 2020. They did, and I bought some to simply enjoy, but with a price tag of around $2.00 per snack container, it was a bit high priced for me to get much more, so I decided to see how I could make them myself with more readily available items. 

Let's start by covering the differences between these remake Dunkaroos and the originals. The first is that the remake only comes with one flavor combination: vanilla cookies and vanilla frosting. Or at least that's what it says on the package. In reality, they're more light good quality shortbread cookies with a very specific frosting: Betty Crocker rainbow chip frosting. In comparison, the original Dunkaroos came in multiple flavors: Chocolate Cookies with Vanilla Frosting, Graham Cookies with Chocolate Frosting, Graham Cookies with Vanilla Frosting, Vanilla cookies with Strawberry Frosting, and Chocolate Chip Graham Cookies with Rainbow Sprinkle frosting. On top of that, there were special versions with media deals, like with Megamind, Shark Tale, and SpongeBob Squarepants. Oh, and there were the Australia-specific Hazelnut Chocolate frosting Dunkaroos. 

Now, I can't tell you how to recreate all of those, mostly because I don't have access to them to taste test, but I can get you close, and for a decent price. I've also found a few that I consider to be particularly good. For most of these, I'm going to be using items from Dollar Tree stores, because I like the added challenge, but let's cover the best way to get a full recreation of the original flavor *and* it's modern remake first. 

The Real Deal

Just get yourself some graham cracker cookies, not actual graham crackers, and that specific Betty Crocker Rainbow Chip Frosting. Teddy Grahams are good, though I personally prefer graham sticks. You can find the latter in Kroger brand all over the U.S.A. You can also use Scooby Snacks. 

The Remake

Same Betty Crocker Rainbow Chip Frosting, but this time get some good quality shortbread cookies. A brand name Walkers has a variety of shortbread cookies, including a mini Scottie Dog, but just about any shortbread cookies that are thin will get you pretty darn close to the taste and texture of the remake. 

From here on out, we're doing Dollar Tree only versions. The biggest failing of Dollar Tree for this particular endeavor is they generally don't carry Betty Crocker frosting, and definitely not the rainbow chip, but they do carry close. At my local dollar tree, they carry Pillsbury Frosting in three flavors: Vanilla, Chocolate Fudge, and Funfetti. Now, the Funfetti does not have the sprinkles mixed in, they're on top, so if you want them mixed in you'll have to do that yourself. Otherwise, feel free to just replace any of these with their Betty Crocker equivalents. 

The Classic

This one I consider classic simply because it most closely matches what we all remember. At Dollar Tree, you will find either 8-12oz bags of Sauffer's animal crackers, or you'll find Grace Snacks 6-ct Animal Crackers packages. Get some of the original style, either brand, and pair them with vanilla frosting. That's it, that's the original Dunkaroos most of us tried as a kid. 

The Chocolate

This one is just an expansion on the same theme. Go back to Dollar Tree, find the Sauffer's Animal Crackers, and look nearby for Staffer's Animal Crackers Chocolate Flavor. Pair those with chocolate fudge frosting. Perfect for the person in your life that can't get enough chocolate, but also wants to remember the 90's in snack form. 

The Switch Ups

Simply Put, switch the animal crackers from the previous two: chocolate crackers with vanilla frosting, and vanilla crackers with chocolate frosting. Both of those flavors were available back in the day. 

The Party Maker

Animal Crackers. Funfetti Frosting. Very classic, very fun. When I was a kid, it would have been a dream. 

The Right Description

This one I just did for fun, but it doesn't taste bad. At Dollar Tree, you can find little containers of mini Nilla Wafers, the actual brand. If they're out of stock, they have an off brand, Bud's Best Cookies, that makes Vanilla Wafers labeled as "bite size." They're not quite as good, but they'll do the trick. Pair those with the vanilla frosting, and suddenly you have the Dunkaroos that are described on the package, rather than what's in the container. 

The Don Quixotes

This one I stumbled across just trying to find good dipping cookies in general. At Dollar Tree, you can often find Lil' Dutch Maid Almond Windmill Cookies. They have an almost gingerbread flavor, but not super strong. If you pair these with a vanilla frosting, it is heavenly. I call them Don Quixotes because you're killing windmills. 

The Tropical Depression

Let's be real here, most of us are overeating right now because we're stuck inside and starting to feel depressed, so while we're at it, let's go ahead and make it fun. Again, I found this combo looking for good dipping cookies in general, and just liked how it turned out. Dollar Tree carries Lil’ Dutch Maid Coconut Bar Cookies, which have a lovely vanilla flavor with a hint of coconut, and they're perfect for scooping up some of that frosting. If you're sticking with the Dollar Tree theme, I heavily recommend the Funfetti with these, but if you're willing to go a little out of your way, try lemon frosting. So good. 

And that's the end of the Dollar Tree ones. There's just one more I want to share with you, because I came across these and figured I'd try them, and they provide a unique experience. They're imported, so I'm gonna name the combo properly. 

Fancy Fingers

There's a brand of cookies called Stella D'oro, and one of their most commonly liked products are Stella D'oro Margherite Cookies. You can get these either in all original, or original and chocolate. I got all original. Margherite cookies are somewhere between Lady Fingers and Biscotti. They are made for dipping in coffee or tea. The original flavor has a bit of lemon in it, but is otherwise very light in flavor. Obviously, with the basic flavors we've already talked about, the best is the chocolate fudge, as they're made to go with something bitter. However, if you feel up to finding some, or making some, some espresso or coffee frosting would be divine. 

Oh, and now I have to tell you the most important information: How to eat them! (yes, I know it seems obvious, but let me talk, it's my post after all). 

Now, if you're like me and just too tired to do prep, you can just grab the package of cookies and a jar of frosting and go ham, but if you're looking to try to have a little bit more of a classic experience, go get yourself some two-compartment snack containers. You can find these at Dollar Tree or just about any grocery store. There are reusable parfait cups that Dollar Tree used to carry that work perfectly, in my opinion. Just fill the larger of the two sections with your preferred cookie, and the smaller with frosting. Then you just take a cookie, dip and scrape up a little frosting on it, and enjoy. Repeat as necessary. 

If you're looking to impress, bring the elegance of being an adult to your nostalgia, or hosting a "90's kids remember, but millennials adult" party, get yourself some disposable shot glasses or condiment cups, and bowls for all your different kinds of cookies. Fill the cups with frosting, make sure there's enough for everyone to get to have at least one cup of each flavor (this is why I suggest condiment cups, you can get 2oz ones with lids in case you have leftovers), and have tongs or something so people can pick out cookies they want to try, put them on a plate, grab some frosting, and enjoy your fancy dinner party with treats to make the 90's kid inside your smile.

I know this isn't a super important thing to talk about, it's not important at all really, but I figured sometimes you've got to take the time to enjoy yourself, and help others find some enjoyment, especially now. So please, try some of these out, have a little fun. A couple bucks can give you enough "treats" to last you well over a week, believe me, and sometimes it can give you that little extra something to look forward to at the end of the day. 

And incidentally, since they've done such a great job providing us with our snacks and nostalgia, maybe go ahead and spend your $2.00 on the actual remakes. Betty Crocker obviously did not sponsor this, but they make nice treats, and if you're like me, they helped make your childhood a little more worth remembering. 

God bless if you'll let Him, and otherwise have a great day. 

- Draknus