Adulthood is a Lie

The title of this blog might give it away, but honestly it's how I'm getting through life: I'm really just faking it. I make it up as I go along and hope things turn out okay!

I recently started helping out with leading the Youth Group at my church. (They want someone younger - and not anyone's parent - to be a "role model" for the kids. And they picked me. I think it's crazy, too.) I'm not sure when, but at some point I really think we might have to have a discussion about being a Grown-up and how it never actually really happens. Like, I pay my bills on time, yes, and have a functionally clean apartment (not spotless, but it'll do). Technically, I am an adult. But… I don't feel like it.

No one tells you when you're a kid that Adulthood isn't some magical state where you always know exactly what to do, exactly when to do it, and all your problems can be easily solved. (I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought of it this way; I'd hit some magic "adult" age like 20 or 25 and have everything figured out, life would always make sense, I'd have all the answers. I'm pretty sure I felt like I had more of the answers at 16 than I do now.) You just assume that you'll get through school, get a job, and you'll be an Adult who can be totally responsible and do Adult things and solve everyone's problems. (In retrospect, that was a silly expectation, considering the number of times I thought adults were doing a pretty shitty job of running things. But of course, I'd be a Real Adult and never have those problems!) And then you achieve one goal, but no, you're not really an Adult yet, you don't have a Big Kid job, you're still in school. And then you finish grad school and know that you'll be an Adult when you've got an apartment of your own. Except Real Adults have apartments that are nicely furnished and decorated, and you've only got half the curtains up on one set of windows (true story), so you clearly don't count yet. And you don't really have responsibility for any living things yet (certainly not children, as that would be terrifying, but not even a dog, just a snake, and that doesn't really count because they're so low-maintenance) so clearly you're not a Real Adult. And some days you don't do your dishes, and you haven't vacuumed in ages so there is hair everywhere, and sometimes you don't even shower (let's not even talk about the chocolate explosion that you still haven't cleaned off your car seat), and Real Adults wouldn't have the sorts of problems with motivation that you have. They might have lists a mile long of all the things they want to do (like make a cool header for their blog, or finish hanging the curtains in their living room, or actually clean their apartment, or alter some clothes they picked up at the thrift store two years ago) except they actually do them.

Except that's wrong. Because (alright, I could be wrong about this too) I think we all just spend our lives kind of blindly groping our way toward our next goal, pretending like we're super-productive Real Adults who can Do It All and Have It All and still get enough sleep. (And some of us will actually admit to pretending.) I, for one, would just like to acknowledge that I'm a Real Person, just a silly little human who makes mistakes and doesn't know everything and is just trying to get through my life and maybe improve myself a little bit, if I'm lucky that day. I'm getting better at forgiving myself for not living up to my own ridiculous expectations; I am me and if sometimes that means the only thing I accomplish in a day is making a lunch to take to work then that is enough, I am enough, and I can try again tomorrow to be a better version of me, but if I don't succeed tomorrow I can try again the next day and all the days after that.

 So I think we should start telling kids that growing up never really ends. You never really become a Real Adult because we think of Real Adults as capable of doing All the Things! And no one can ever do that. (Certainly not me.) And if we can admit that to ourselves, and forgive ourselves for that, then maybe we can admit that about other people and forgive them and end up living in a kinder, gentler world. Which would be nice.

Evo Psych: the worst?

My plans for the day had included going to a football scrimmage with friends. Unfortunately, I woke up with a cold so I'm spending the day on the couch instead. So I'm writing a blog post, which hopefully doesn't sound too delirious!

---

Just to warn you in advance, I have Opinions on evolutionary psychology. Mainly that it is, by and large, a bunch of bull. Sorry I'm not sorry, but humans are influenced way too much by culture to make most of the conclusions that EvoPsych papers try to make. So that's my disclaimer. I'm skeptical from the start of papers that try to draw conclusions about biological gender differences between humans, and when you try to account for those differences by saying, "Because evolution!" I usually just roll my eyes.

A few days ago a coworker posted a link on Facebook to this article, "Why Don't Men Understand Women? Altered Neural Networks for Reading the Language of Male and Female Eyes." I was intrigued, because of my aforementioned skepticism about gender-based science, so I clicked through to read the article. (Side note: I really do appreciate open-access journals!)

First, I noticed they have a really limited sample of subjects. Only men. All of whom were single. And right-handed. Hardly a representative sample of a population. They did describe some interesting phenomena regarding these men's ability to recognize gender and emotion just from looking at eyes, and what sort of brain activity occurs during those tasks. But that's all they did - describe phenomena observed in a particular subset of a particular gender. What sort of differences might be found if comparing single men and married men? Straight men and gay men? Cis- and transgender men? Or (imagine!) men and women (of various categories)?

My major issue with this paper came up when I read their discussion, which included this: "From an evolutionary point of view, accurate interpretations of other men’s rather than women’s thoughts and intentions, especially threatening cues... may have been a factor contributing to survival in ancient times. As men were more involved in hunting and territory fights, it would have been important for them to be able to predict and foresee the intentions and actions of their male rivals." I kind of wish this was like Wikipedia so I could flag this with a little ^{[citation needed]}. Based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge of modern hunter-gatherer tribes (who are typically raised as the best example we have of early, pre-agricultural human society), there's not much in the way of defending territory that goes on. And I'm pretty sure hunting would actually involve more cooperative communication - running down antelope and other large game isn't what I would call a solo activity.

See, human behavior is... complicated. It isn't a result of simple cause-effect relationships. It's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, culturey-naturey... stuff. (H/t to Steven Moffat for writing "Blink") Which is to say, untangling which behaviors are largely "natural" and biologically based from those that are mostly influenced by culture is incredibly difficult, if not impossible. On top of that, to make conclusions about gender differences, it would help to actually compare the genders. Which, as far as I'm concerned, is where all the really interesting questions arise (and maybe, if you're lucky, get a bit of an answer). Do women's reactions parallel those of men - are they better at identifying a) members of their own gender and b) the emotions of their own gender? Or are they the opposite - are women also better at identifying men and men's emotions? Once you know that, you can actually start making guesses about why you got those results. Perhaps there is some biological basis to emotional recognition, such that it's easier within your own gender. Or perhaps there are cultural factors at work - men and women might tend to have more friends of their own gender and thus more experience interpreting emotions of their own gender. Maybe men and women both get more practice empathizing with men because the majority of authority figures in business and protagonists in media are male. The "default hero" figure is generally male; media focused on female protagonists is often marketed mostly or exclusively to females (see: every "chick-flick" and romantic comedy, Disney princess movies), while media focused on male protagonists is viewed as accessible to men and women.

Even if you want to limit your sample to men, you could try throwing in a little variety by including married men (or left-handers?). Again, once you expand your sample you can actually make comparisons and try to draw conclusions somewhat legitimately. Alright, realistically, you'll probably only generate more questions with no answers. But at least you'll have something actually interesting to discuss! Are married men better at reading women's emotions than single men? Is that a causal relationship (men who are better at understanding women are more likely to get married) or a result (being married gives men more practice at interpreting women's emotions)? Or are all men, regardless of marital status, better at reading men's emotions than women's emotions?

As is, this paper does nothing more than describe particular neurological phenomena related to emotion recognition by men. Once you actually compare different samples (e.g., men vs. women, single vs. married), you can start to make some valuable, legitimate conclusions about how modern human behavior works. Not necessarily about how humans evolved. Making evolutionary conclusions requires actually demonstrating selective pressures and how they impact trait expression, which this paper very obviously does not do. (And, all things considered, most human studies can't hope to do, which is why EvoPsych is a bunch of malarkey.)

In conclusion: Science - you're doing it poorly.

Adults: they take care of stuff

One thing I do know about being an adult is that it involves being responsible. Lots of days, I feel like I don't really have my life together, so how can I possibly qualify as a grown-up? Then I remind myself that a) many people - including people much older than me - don't have their lives "together" in terms of knowing what their ideal career is and b) I do my best to behave responsibly by paying my bills on time and keeping my apartment relatively clean and trying not to run my car into the ground and caring for my plants and pet.

One of my coworkers (who is 26 or 27) will be taking guardianship of her 12-year-old cousin in a couple weeks because of a bad family situation. The boy's mom died recently, and his father has been... acting out, for lack of a better word - staying out all night, forgetting to buy food, forgetting to take his son to school, dating inappropriate women (inappropriate in that the ladies don't call him out on his BS in not caring for his kid). She's a little freaked out. At the same time, she knows it'll be better for him than living with his father right now. And she's planning to take a new job that will let her work "normal" 9-5 hours. She'll be missed by us (I'll definitely miss her!), but this job is better for her career-wise, and certainly better for someone who has a pre-teen kid.

So, while I would be more terrified than my coworker at suddenly finding myself taking care of a human child, it has helped me realize that, in the essential things, I'm doing a pretty good job at being a real adult. I recognize when things depend on me, and I get things done in an appropriate time to take care of stuff. It's a reassuring thought that, should a crisis suddenly arise, I have the skills and coping mechanisms (and a pretty great social support network to call on!) to deal with it. So I guess I actually am a fully-functional adult? Such a weird thought.

Republicans just don't make sense

Dear Republicans,

Honestly, I understand that you are pro-life. I can understand your position. I am pro-choice because I believe women should make medical decisions about their own bodies - I don't believe women run around getting abortions willy-nilly. I think in all cases, women who choose abortion do so because they are aware of their own mental/emotional, physical, and financial health and the impact that just being pregnant can have on their lives. But I do understand that you value that potential life. I just disagree that the interests of a clump of cells/fetus (that can't survive outside the womb - and even when it gets to the point where it takes dramatic, expensive medical intervention to keep it alive) automatically take precedence over the health and well-being of the mother.

What I don't understand is why you think it's okay to restrict abortions to the point where they are nigh impossible to get safely. Because, if you think about it, it's actually cheaper (for society as a whole!) for a woman to get an abortion than to carry a baby to term and have to pay for pre-natal care, take maternity leave, and pay for delivery and any neonatal care. Plus, if the baby isn't even wanted, it then enters the foster care system where it is supported by tax-payers (and not supported very well, at that) for up to 18 years. (Other recent anti-woman action makes me question your devotion to "small government" - so small it can not only fit inside a bedroom to prevent gay people from being with those they love, but small enough to fit inside every woman's uterus to prevent them from making their own medical decisions!)

Wanting to defund Planned Parenthood makes even less sense in light of your purported pro-life stance. Planned Parenthood provides family planning and contraception services. Which prevent unintended pregnancies. If women don't accidentally get pregnant, they don't need abortions. I'm not sure why you can't grasp this concept. Opposition to comprehensive sex education in public schools is also illogical, for a similar reason. Teaching teens how to have safe sex prevents teen pregnancy; fewer teen pregnancies lead to a decreased need for abortion. (Nothing I've ever seen has convinced me that teen pregnancy is anything but harmful to everyone involved - the girls themselves get behind in school, as well as the stigma of being a pregnant teen; their families get stuck with an additional mouth to feed that, as far as I can tell, generally falls to the new grandparents to care for; the babies, if they are given up for adoption, get put into foster care, which, as I stated above, is not an ideal place for a child of any age - everybody loses!)

Basically, your actions just scream to me that you are only pro-life until that fetus is actually born. Then you don't care about it - especially if it grows up to be a woman who finds herself pregnant and wanting an abortion.

You baffle me. (And trust me, there's much, much more I could talk about...)

Stay out of my uterus, please.

Sincerely,
Katherine

Atheists and fundamentalists have something in common... pissing me off!

Dear people of the world,

Okay. Let's get something straight. Religion is not science. And science is not religion. They address completely different questions.

I'm tired of Christians (and other religious people) acting like science has no value. But I'm also tired of atheists who act like all religious people are idiots and deserve to be told that their beliefs have no value.

Here's the thing: religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I'll say it again. RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

One answers questions about how the world works. And the other answers questions (or at least attempts to answer them) about what it means to be a person and, generally, how to be a good person. Hopefully you can figure out for yourself which is which.

As a scientist and a Christian, I'm sick of hearing religious fundamentalists discount science. I'm also sick of atheists discounting religious beliefs (perhaps you would be more comfortable if I just referred to them as a philosophy). For the religious fundamentalists: stop treating theological texts like they're scientific/historical texts! The Bible (or Torah or Koran) is not now and never has been a science book. Acknowledging that it is not literally true does not take away from the moral lessons that can be obtained from it. (And guess what? "Cherry picking" is what we all do, and it's not actually that bad.) Science is not out to get you and your beliefs. Science is based on real, observable facts and testable, falsifiable hypotheses. Incidentally, religious beliefs in the existence of a God are neither testable nor falsifiable, and so do not qualify as scientific (which is why Intelligent Design should never be taught in science classes). Just because I'm a scientist does not mean I don't believe in God. For the atheists: stop acting like you're so much better than believers because you choose not to believe. Just because I'm a Christian does not mean I don't accept scientific truth (or as close to truth as you can get in science). Here's the way I see it: you're like the first kid in class who finds out Santa isn't actually a real person, and then you have to tell all the other kids that what they're believing isn't true. Except, if you watch the Christmas specials, it quickly becomes apparent (at least, it does to me) that Santa doesn't have to have existence in this reality to have power. That idea of doing something for someone else, of sacrificing your own time and energy to make others happy, of helping other people have a better life and see a little magic in the world, is what Santa is about. I'm sorry that you refuse to believe in any sort of "non-real", "non-scientific" phenomenon, but I choose to see magic and beauty and meaning in life, because I'm a human and it makes me feel connected to other humans (and other life). I'll listen to your belief (or lack thereof) in a deity, if you'll listen to my (admittedly not entirely clear even to myself sometimes) beliefs. But my choosing to continue to believe in a Santa of some sort does not give you the right to treat me like I'm stupid. Yes, I have faith. And I'm happy to continue with my faith. My continued belief in God does not harm you, and as such it is none of your business. It is between myself and the God I choose to belief in. I don't need you to act like my admission of belief is an invitation for you to try and prove to me why I shouldn't believe. I don't treat your admission of non-belief as an invitation for me to try and convert you to my faith. I'm sorry if other religious believers have treated it that way, but I will not. Please return the favor.

One final time: RELIGION. IS. NOT. SCIENCE. AND. SCIENCE. IS. NOT. RELIGION. They are not mutually exclusive.

Sincerely,
Katherine

PS - I think that Santa analogy kind of got away from me there... It did come off rather "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus". Granted, I obviously support that idea, so...

Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole. -Roger Caras

Dear Tess,

I wish you hadn't left so quickly. At least when we had to let Nutmeg go, we could see it coming for a long time. And 11 isn't young for a dog, but you should have had so many more years with us. Cancer is just so unfair. It's just hard to fathom the idea that you won't be running to greet me when I visit home any more.

I know you weren't perfect, but you were such a good dog! It just doesn't seem right that you had to go. I hope there are lots of squirrels for you to chase in heaven. At least you can bother Nutmeg again!

I love and miss you, my beautiful baby!

-Katherine