Sociology: Encounters with Homeless People

A few days ago, while I was walking around in Little Five Points in Atlanta, I came across a homeless guy who was begging for money. This incident on its own is not surprising nor is it surprising that he stopped me and asked me for money. I have been approached a number of times before. What is surprising this time is what went through my mind. I realized that homeless people have an attribute that many of us should have but lack: a barrier to talking with strangers! Isn't a lack of understanding between people best curable by open communication?

Now, I know that genuine communication is different from begging for money which is why I didn't give him any money but instead smiled and said that I'll buy him some coffee and chat for a bit if he doesn't mind. He said he was fine with that. So I went inside the coffee shop five steps away and bought two cups of coffee, one for myself and one for him. (I wasn't sure what flavor he wanted so I chose something that wouldn't be too strange.)

In our little conversation, I was able to find out that he was originally from South Carolina but came to Atlanta since a relative of his said there's work here. Since he got here a few months ago, he has been out on the streets in the area of Little Five Points. I noticed that he had a limp in his right leg. I asked him what happened. He told me that he got shot several years ago but he didn't seem to want to go into more details.

Our conversation ended rather quickly since he constantly felt like reminding me that I should give him money so he can go buy a baloney sandwich. I don't like to give money since I don't know what they'll do with it and I had no guarantee that I would get better stories from him by buying him a baloney sandwich even after satiating his hunger. I decided to just leave him alone.

Later, I was thinking that if I was with a friend who would be willing to do this though, I would definitely have talked to him a while longer. I was reminded of an incidence several years ago when my friend and I were walking on the streets of Little Rock and a guy we didn't think was homeless asked us for some money. Since he didn't look threatening or crazy, we decided to take him to a nice little restaurant and hear his story. We learned that he suffered learning disabilities and had a terrible family upbringing. I wanted to keep in touch with him with email which he said he had one. Unfortunately, we never got in touch again so I hope he's alright.

It may seem like I have these conversations all the time but it's actually quite rare. Since my conversations with homeless people don't usually happen on a regular basis, when they do, they leave a mark in my mind. While I was talking with this guy, I had another flashback of a really interesting conversation I had with a homeless guy a few years back at a hotel in Arizona.

I was in Arizona for a space conference and on one of those nights there was a party in a crowded hotel room. I did not feel that shouting over the music and chatter was worth it so I went downstairs to cool off. There, while standing outside, a homeless guy came up to me and instead of begging for money as I presumed, asked if he can borrow my phone to make a phone call. Apparently, someone was supposed to meet with him and etc. I told him to come into the lobby since it's cold outside and make his phone call. He did and said that he needed to wait.

We sat in the lobby and talked for a little while before he mentioned Bruce Li. Coincidentally, I had a Bruce Li movie on my laptop and so we started watching it. One of the guards came by a few times and was slightly suspicious but I told the guard that he was cool so the guard left us alone for a while. Ultimately though, it was quite obvious and the guard told him he had to leave. The guy made one last phone call and thanked me before leaving. I hope he found who he was looking for.

I feel like that the more privileged we are, the less open we are towards those who are less fortunate. I watched a documentary called Born Rich before on rich kids and it's apparent that most of these guys never interact at all with people who are not rich. In other words, 99% of the people in this world do not exist for these guys. They have their exclusive parties and getaway vacations. On the other hand, you have homeless people who are willing to talk to anyone to get some money or for those who are more genuine, have someone care about where they come from. Clearly, for society to operate well, the amount of wealth should not be an indication  of how much or how little you talk with your fellow human being. Communication between all parties should be welcome.

Sociology: Why Musicians are More Attractive

The female mind acts more out of emotion than reason. The reason that musicians have much greater sex appeal than most non-musical nerds* is due to music's direct access to the emotional part of the brain. Music, a favorite activity of musicians, is a drug that can create intensely good feelings in the brain. Intellectual conversation, a favorite activity of nerds, on the other hand, is a convoluted and complicated logical process that usually confuses the less intellectual-minded (which happens to make up most of the population).

"Falling in love at first sight" is not a logical response but an emotional one. Even a decent musician who can play some songs can trigger a series of chemicals creating a fuzzy good feeling in any girl's mind except those of the deaf or emotionally comatose variety. However, an intellectual discussion is far less likely to create the same emotions and can sometimes cause argument even if the girl understands the conversational topic. Thus, to reach a girl's heart, it's best to avoid the logical and appeal to the emotional.

The only times when the nerd is on equal footing as the musician for sex appeal is when the girl is a rational being herself or is impressed by intelligence. This will be a rare girl indeed and if a nerd finds such a girl, he has probably found another nerd. Even in such a situation though, too much logic is not good. For instance, consider the first kiss. A nerd analyzes the moment and decides whether it is the moment before doing anything. By the time the nerd does anything the moment has already passed.

In short, nerds rarely get into bed with a girl or have a romantic relationship since the nerd's favorite activity is usually too analytical to have much emotional appeal. On the other hand, music has a direct emotional appeal and enables the musician to be immediately more attractive to the female mind. This truth can be seen all around. While ugly musicians can hook up with attractive girls, even handsome nerds are often single.

I think I may have been too analytical here myself. This analysis is concluded.

Self-improvement: Life is a Banquet

While driving a friend home, he brought up the question that I asked him a while ago: "If your life is a movie, will people want to watch it?" He told me that if the last six years of his life is the same level of excitement as most people's entire lives, he can see why they all think that their life movie is too boring to watch.

He had told me a number of interesting stories in his life that I would definitely pay to watch if it was a movie. Yet, what's sad is that many people think that he's making things up. Those things coulnd't possibly have happened in his life! He couldn't possibly have had the grandest time in Hong Kong just because he knocked out a guy at a bar to save a girl's honor. He couldn't possibly have grabbed a gun away from an idiot rich guy in front of a club and later won a sham court case for his amazing restraint in not beating the guy up. He couldn't possibly have dressed up as a black guy and walked down some ghetto neighborhoods to see what would happen.

I have stories as well but many of the more interesting ones may give me a bad reputation so I'll refrain from telling them here. The bottom line is many people's lives are apparently so boring that they'll rather believe that such tales can only happen in movies. Yet, they watch adapted movies which show ordinary people encountering interesting situations and they believe those stories. I find it funny that many people will rather believe in a story that's probably edited and dramatized for TV production rather than someone who's telling them face-to-face a segment of his or her life.

There's a quote from a character called Aunte Mame in a movie:

"Life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death."

My question to you is if you're at a banquet hall with a table full of action, new characters, and plot twists, why are you starving in a corner instead of taking your seat at the table?

Self-improvement: The Lunge or Leap of Faith

There are times when you realize that you're caught up in the doldrums of daily depressing repetition that you feel utterly chained to its worthless mediocrity. You can find yourself doing the same tedious work, talking to the same people entertaining the same thoughts, and doing the same things before you fall asleep every night. As these mostly irrelevant moments of your life pile upon each other like layers of snow, your embers of life is slowly buried in this frosty entombment.

At this moment, you may realize your sad life and in desperation you go for the lunge. The lunge is the last ditch effort to free yourself from the snow of repetitive nothingness that has buried your embers of life. (Heavens forbid if you find yourself so deeply buried in snow that you can't even move your feet.) A close relative of the leap of faith, the lunge is distinguished from its cousin since it is an act of desperation whereas the leap of faith is an act of free choice.

A few days ago before I flew back to the states, I encountered on the same day two occasions two girls who decided to travel spontaneously. One has taken a lunge whereas the other has taken an act of faith. The girl who chooses to quit her bartending job and travel for months in Europe since she wants to escape the daily mediocrity of her work and life is taking the desperate lunge. The girl who chooses to quit her teaching job and travel for months in Europe to gain experience in her life before she returns to a teaching lifestyle is taking a leap of faith.

If we can take a leap of faith to refresh our lives, that will be ideal. However, that is the ideal world and sometimes in this real world, the lunge, despite its nature of desperation, is the only way to radically rejuvenate ourselves and discover once more why we choose to live. The alternative is to let ourselves atrophy in a sad cocoon of reality where without outside intervention (unlikely), our accumulated apathy towards our own lives leads us to the end of our lives, either literally or figuratively. What do you choose to do?

Philosophy: Consumption, Destruction, and Creation

For every object in existence in this world, we can choose to act through one of three methods: consume, destroy, or create. Consumption is using the outputs of creation. Destruction is eliminating the creation itself. Creation is the act of creating something so that there can be consumption or destruction. An everyday example is TV. Consumption is watching TV programs. Destruction is physically destroying the TV or ensuring that no TV broadcasts are made. Creation is producing a new TV program or building a TV.

From a macroscopic perspective, the percentage of time allocated to each of these three actions in a society is a good indicator of the society's well-being. In the worst possible dictatorial society such as North Korea, the only acts permissible are consumption and destruction. Creation is carefully restricted to those in power and strongly discouraged by force otherwise. In such a society, progress will be slow if at all. Indeed, this can be extended to a generality: For any society, if creation is not greater than consumption or destruction, then the society cannot progress.

The macroscopic relevance of this rule is built on a fundamental level upon the microscopic acts of the individual. If an individual consumes or destroys more than he or she produces, this individual is creating a negative balance in society. For an individual to exist in this world, he or she is either selfish, misguided, or lazy to presume that the individual should feel entitled getting things by doing things of lesser value. A rich heir that squanders away his inherited wealth has demolished the culmination of the value of the creation of his forefathers. By logical extension of the counterpart, the most worthwhile individual will be one who strives to be at least one step above the ladder than his or her predecessors.

Some may object to this simple analysis by stating that not everything which is created has value. Aren't some creations dangerous and harmful? Is it not better to create nothing than something if more harm will arise due to its creation? Unfortunately, creation for the most part seems to be a double-edged sword. With few exceptions (such as gas chambers), any product or service created can both be served for good or bad. For instance, just consider

- Nuclear bomb versus nuclear energy

- GPS satellites for military surveillance and missile targeting versus ensuring that you do not get lost

- Rockets for military use versus rockets to travel to space

- Viruses concoted to kill people versus medicine developed to cure diseases

Since the good or bad usage of technology is impossible for us to predict, we cannot stop all progress just because of the possibility of something being used in the wrong way. This is not to say that we shouldn't be careful. To be noted is that in general for a technology, the greater the potential for good, also the greater the potential for bad.

Another valid counterargument is that not all individuals can create more than they consume. Consider a long-term hospital patient who is suffering from a debilitating illness. Is that person not entitled to be supported, i.e. consume more than create? The answer here seems to cross from the mechanistic into the moralistic. Actually, there is no such distinction. One merely has to observe the past history of the individual and his or her present state of action assuming that the individual still has faculty of mind and body. If even at this stage, the individual has the brimming energy to go do something or if the individual has demonstrated such tendency in the past, then the current state is but a temporary one.

More counterarguments can certainly be brought up and I'll be happy to address them.

Philosophy: Religion and Spirituality

Many people don't realize there is a difference between religion and spirituality. Religion often boils down to following a set of prescribed rules of dos and do nots despite what else it may say. One should not murder. One should not steal. Ask a religious person why she doesn't steal something from the store when there's no one around and she'll tell you that it's against some religious figure, divine being, or holy book's teachings. Maybe it's even all three. Whoo hoo.

That is not the case with spirituality. You don't steal when you can because you feel it within you that it's against the way of nature. Your reason is not based on prescribed formulas of right or wrong regardless of whose authority it originates from. There is no divine law you just broke. You don't commit such an action because you feel at peace within yourself when you don't do such a thing.

With every rule there is an exception and that's the problem with blindly following some religion. Holding religious tenets can make you quite a fool though you may fool yourself into thinking you're actually wise.

Case in point, a natural disaster just struck and half the town is deserted. There are looters everywhere ransacking shops and such. You go in a jewelry store and sees that there's a few diamonds and pearls in a dimly lit corner that people have missed. But you realize that as the night goes on and before help arrives, there's no way every looter will overlook it. What do you do?

If you say "God says I should not steal and other people will certainly obey this too and if not let God punish them", you just leave it where it is and go on your merry way out of the city. Shortly afterwards, some gang leader sees them and buys some more weapons and drugs with the money from selling them when things return to normal. God somehow doesn't punish him and he turns a few more kids into crackheads or gang members.

On the other hand, if you say "I'll borrow it for the time being so that other less decent people wouldn't just steal it and never give it back. I'll track down who the owner was when things return back to normal and give him or her back what's rightfully his or hers.", you'll gladly take them.

Let's just say you never manage to track down who the owner was. Was it wrong for you to steal the jewels? In that case, it depends on what you do with them. If you sell the jewels to have money for a vacation I believe so. But if you sell them to donate to a charity I believe stealing them was still good.

There are no rules that's not meant to be broken given the right circumstances. Following rules from a holy book without constant reflection on when to apply them actually makes you more foolish though you might be less selfish. Good job. You're no longer quite a selfish person seeking material gratification; instead you're now more of an idealistic fool who thinks you're actually wise. I'm sure being a fool is better than a hedonist but I'm not sure it's much of an improvement.

As another example, let me talk about Christianity in this country. I have met many Christians who are nice (though I have met a few that's not so nice but that's another topic). But there's two kinds of nice. Some of them are genuinely nice while others are religious nice. By the latter, I mean that you can tell they're only nice to you because some book they follow says so. You can sense their nice is somehow forced. If they didn't follow the book's teachings you can be sure that they wouldn't be this nice to you.

I find that very disturbing for the main reason that if so much of their actions and attitudes are determined by following those teachings, do they ever think for themselves? Or do they just reference the book or their pastor's teachings on what to do just about everytime something comes up? I really wonder how much of their actions are up to themselves to decide and how much they relegate to some book or person's teachings. Maybe this is why I find many of these religiously nice people to be a terrible bore if not merely annoying. Given any hypothetical situation, it's very predictable how they'll react. *Yawn*

There's countless other examples of how following a religion actually makes you more foolish than wise. I'll just list out a few I thought of here that's especially applicable in the states:

- Condemning the theory of evolution without understanding how scientific theories work

- Claiming abortion to be wrong regardless of the mother's circumstances

- Condeming gay people as sinners who should miraculously turn straight even though the tendency is often inherently biological

- Talking to people of other beliefs and telling them that they're definitely going to be severely punished by God if they don't convert

- Evangelizing to people who don't really need evangelizing and who's actually more spiritual than you though they don't agree with you on certain "fundamental" principles

- Believing people who can dreamwalk, dream of the future, tell the future of people, spiritually sense their surroundings, etc. to be charlatans or even worse practitioners of evil sorcery

The way to do this is not to think about by what rules or holy words should you do or not do. Instead just reflect on the consequences of an important decision on the world. By world I'm referring to the general sense of anyone or anything including yourself. If the way you take causes greater disharmony in the world in the end, don't do it. On the other hand, if it causes greater harmony or has no effect on the world, why not do it? It's always possible to follow a religion and be spiritual instead of "religious".

There is a caveat here though. I do believe that some people do need religion. Not everyone is sensitive enough to the needs of themselves, other people, or the planet's well-being. Some people are not born that way. They cannot or have a hard time feeling the pain of others. Maybe they somehow are born or have grown long accustomed to even attaining pleasure from hurting others. In these cases, I believe strictly following a religion to be a powerful means of control. The alternative can be much worse.