The thought was first provoked through a conversation that circled around different emotional feelings upon the deaths of different types of animals. As a forefront disclaimed, be aware that I in NO WAY support the killing of animals, I am not saying that it is better to kill some animals than others, or anything of that nature (punned). Rather, I hope to express and raise question with regards to how the average person carries a different emotional load depending upon the animal in question.
According to Wikipedia, the definition of roadkill is “an animal or animals that have been struck and killed by motor vehicles”. While this conversation is not limited to that domain, it is where we will begin. It is clear that different global regions will experience different animals, and I will attempt to address that later, but I will begin with my home and the majority of my experience in the United States northeast. Here, many of the common animals that are seen on the roads include squirrels, deer, raccoons, opossums, and skunks.
So where do emotions play a role? For me, I always* feel sad (to some extent...usually) when I see an animal on the side of the road. However, I harbor close to no remorse for the squirrels. I have for a long time believed that they are steadily attempting to conquer the world through means of car-swerve-collisions. As it turns out, the word squirrel as derived from roots meaning “shadow-tailed”. While this is most commonly believed to be a result of the large shadow cast by the small creatures’ bushy tails, some of us believe the little guys hide in those shadows to strike from the darkness.
The other animals on my local list can be explained much quicker. Deer are large and for some reason, that yields a larger sense of grief. Raccoons can be cute, but are generally mischievous and I’ve had to clean up way too much spilled trash in my day. Opossums are unfortunate and lead to sadness, but they are a more rare sight for me. Skunks however cause me close to no emotional turmoil for the same reason twice. First, I never actually see them but only smell them. Second, I smell them. They smell bad…
Some of my clauses here have begged the questions of what leads a person to feel worse for one animal than another. Are they larger; smaller? Did you actually see the animal? Do you have a past history with the animal; positive or negative? Who did the hitting and was it actually with a motor vehicle? If not, it was likely intentional... Let’s examine some other animals and common emotional responses.
Take a moment to consider some insects. I think most insects are killed without a second thought. Mosquitoes, house flies and black flies are all pesky bloodsuckers and I’ve often assigned them all point values for killing. Cockroaches often get a second thought, but that’s mostly a result of sheer size rather than emotional attachment. Other insects however are, at times, valued. Lady bugs are often encouraged to land on us for luck and a cricket in one’s boat is considered lucky. Well, then you might confuse the cricket for a locust swarm and it eats your home. Those ones can go…
So insects lead to an interesting dichotomy of feelings. Does it bite you or does it bring you luck? Is it large or small – not that this always relates to emotion but is still a consideration. There is similar turmoil within single types as well. Consider spiders – some people love them, others hate them. Me, I like them.
How about some reptiles and amphibians? Snakes are commonly seen killed on the sides of highways or especially bike paths. Snake enthusiasts I apologize but I think on average this goes unnoticed. Turtles are unfortunately slow in their road crossings and certainly lead to feelings of regret. Is this once again a product of size? Or is it a product of mobility?
A return to mammals is where the lists become interesting. While I won’t go type per type, consider some small mammals including mice, rats, squirrels, bats, and rabbits. While they may not all be seen equally often, most of these go without too much sorrow in their wake. Is it because they aren’t noticed (either before or after)? Or perhaps it is because many of these are considered pests if they are not strictly pets (note that I believe if any of these were pets, of one was a pet owner of one of these types of animals you might feel differently). For instance, a stray mouse in the house (rhymed) is often left a gift in the form of a small spring loaded trap. Certain family members of mine were recently celebrating their dominance over the small creatures with his “hunting prowess”. One might ask, if the hunting is merely setting a trap, and his next task is to collect the mouse, is he not in fact a gatherer? This jest was not taken lightly...
Let’s consider a step higher in terms of mammal size. Animals here could include dogs and cats (heaven forbid to both!), skunks, opossums, and raccoons. I could not think of another common animal that would fit in this category. I think most of us can agree that the concept of dogs or cats is appalling and likely the first true emotional blow some of us might have imagined in this text. That however might not be true in other countries where those animals are not considered pets or companions. By contrast, skunks through raccoons are seen on roadsides frequently but rarely is a tear shed for them. Is this a result simply of our close living conditions with the prior creatures?
We can go larger still. Consider deer, horses (again – heaven forbid!), bears, moose, and cows. Now things get interesting. This interest is partly a result of the car-animal relationship. Recall that roadkill is defined as “an animal or animals that have been struck and killed by motor vehicles”. While before it was a fairly one-way interaction, now the car begins to loose – particularly in the case of the moose. The moose rarely looses and often does not die, so perhaps should not be listed among “roadkill”, but lets overlook that detail for the time being. I think it rare to hit one of these animals and not feel a sense of sorrow and regret. Is it a result of their sheer size? Perhaps it is their stature. Is it a way for our attempt to miss them and protect ourselves and our car to manifest?
An interesting thought arises out of the idea of a deer though. There are clearly different feelings from different situations. Was the deer full grown or a fawn? Was it alone or part of a heard? Don't forget that there is always another deer... I think it interesting that these factors can change the way one feels about the events that take place. Why do these things trigger different emotional strings?
For those of you from or who frequent Australia, what if you hit a kangaroo? Here in New York the idea sounds ridiculous, but I know that it occurs. For me that would be tragic and emotional, but perhaps down under the kangaroo is my squirrel.
My goal in this writing is not to express that some roadkill, or animal fatalities, are less emotional or upsetting than another. However, I do hope to raise the question of how we feel when we witness it or are aware of it. Why do we feel the way we do? When is an animal a pest and when is it a pal? Why does age play a role when we consider these feelings of ours? What makes some animals hated while others are adored? Sometimes that answer is obvious, but sometimes it is worth some thought.
Again, I do not hope to convince you of my thinking, but do hope I can provoke some thoughts of your own. In the off chance that you have a sick sense of humor (like me) and frequent long and tedious road trips, perhaps you’ll want to look into the following car ride activity…
Roadkill Bingo
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Next Level Home Ed – the Turducken
(The name becomes apparent pretty far down...)
For a large number of years now, my brother has hosted an event known as Pre-Thanksgiving. This is a time of year that occurs 1-3 weeks prior to the national holiday known as Thanksgiving. The purpose of the event is to celebrate the festive time of year with one's friends (and to gorge oneself upon vast quantities of delicious food), as many people return home to their families for the actual holiday. Over the years many turkeys have been cooked, and in many new and unique ways. This year, the challenge was to cook the fabled Turducken.
To begin, I would like to give credit where credit is due. Much of the work was done by my brother Rob, and I do not mean to take that away from him. I helped with the bird itself little more than in a single photographed step that you will read about. With that in mind, I've heard much of what was involved and will be writing to my best knowledge of the process as a whole.
To begin, and for anyone who does not know, a Turducken is exactly what it sounds like – though not found anywhere in the wild. It is a Turkey that has been stuffed with a duck, which has then been stuffed with a chicken. When choosing birds, this is not simply a Russian doll matching game. One must also attempt to account for the total amount of food they wish to be serving. With that in mind, the following birds were collected and prepared for the so to be masterpiece:
Now, unless you consider yourself uncanny at stuffing objects, I think you'll agree that it appears difficult to get each of these birds within each other. So, next step is to de-bone the fowl. It is important to now realize that if you find a wild Turducken it is, in fact, a boneless creature (see sharks as another example). De-boning the birds is a delicate process and all aspects of your work space must be appropriate (including the atmosphere). It is recommended that while you work, large knife in hand, you have set yourself to listening to Wagner. Imagine walking into the kitchen to see your chef, knife in one hand – dead bird in the other, while the following blasts through the background: Ride of the Valkyries(and yes, you should continue to listen as you read!)
We know have 3 sheets of bird, and have on the side created a vat of stuffing (sounds delicious I know!). At this point the masterpiece must be assembled. This is a simple layering process. Lay down and open the turkey, and coat it in a solid layer of stuffing. Align the duck, centered and in the same orientation, and top that with another layer of stuffing. Finally lay on the chicken, once more the same way as the duck. See below for a series of photos that demonstrate this process.
What we now have is in no way suitable for cooking. The following process is what I refer to as “next level home ed: where cooking meats [punned :) ] sewing”. If you can imagine, attempting to cook this masterpiece as is would result in many dry and burned sections while leaving most of the middle raw and under cooked. To solve this, and improve presentation, we must prepare the Turducken, both in appearance and practice to look like a turkey. This involves folding the outer edges together and sewing the seem to keep the legendary Turducken closed and in one piece.
To do this you will need 5* things: the aforementioned Turducken, 2 extra hands, a hefty length of butcher's twine, and a crazy needle that looks kind of like a bent nail that has a hole in an end for thread (*depending on how sizes work out there may be a last necessity, but it will be mentioned later). For this one person will be holding and pulling the crazy bird closed while the other stitches the seam that spans the length of the creature. Start near, but not at the base of the Turkey (we'll get the very bottom at the end). Keep the stitches close together but as far from the edge of the skin as you can. The bird is quite stuffed and the stitches can easily tear. Proceed slowly and include as many stitches as possible. Once you've reached the top, tie off your stitches and stand the bird on its head. It is likely that your creation is too full to easily stitch the bottom closed. At this point it is very helpful to have kept some extra chicken skin that you convenient removed before stuffing that bird (yes, we removed the skin in addition to the bones of that one). Instead of forcing the turkey closed, carefully graft on some extra chicken skin and close off the Turducken completely. See below for the work done during this step.
We're almost there! Take your crazy bird (it now looks like no more than a fat turkey) and stick it in your oven. For cooking specifications, you'll need to know your own bird size, oven temperatures and available time. However, once the bird reaches appropriate temperature, it is done. Remove your beautiful lightly browned beast – carve – and serve. Be aware that different sections will have different ratios of turkey, duck, chicken and stuffing.
This is not the end of the tale of the Turducken however. There is further exploration that needs to be done and discussed. For these, I will simply touch on some concepts for future thoughts and inputs. The question has been raised if Newton's Heat Equation can accurately simulate the heating curve of a Turducken (and thus help perfect the predicted cooking times). Why is this question raised? There is always the question of truth to how long it will take to cook one's individual bird. However, the conventional turkey is basically a shell of bird surrounding a nearly hollow center that is filled with a variety of stuffing. The combination of bird, meat and stuffing creates a very non-uniformed body. By contrast, the super-dense, boneless Turducken is possibly as close as one can get food to be a uniformed sphere of meat. Should this work, many people could be saved much stress with regards to the time requirements of their turkeys.
Lastly, is the Turducken, the king of the Thanksgiving fowl? Below are 2 alternatives that have recently come to light. The first is the Turturkeykey – courtesy of How I Met Your Mother, and the second is the Turduckenen-duckenen – courtesy of Vi Hart.
Turturkeykey
Turduckenen-duckenen
I hope you enjoyed reading and look forward to testing your own in the near future!
For a large number of years now, my brother has hosted an event known as Pre-Thanksgiving. This is a time of year that occurs 1-3 weeks prior to the national holiday known as Thanksgiving. The purpose of the event is to celebrate the festive time of year with one's friends (and to gorge oneself upon vast quantities of delicious food), as many people return home to their families for the actual holiday. Over the years many turkeys have been cooked, and in many new and unique ways. This year, the challenge was to cook the fabled Turducken.
To begin, I would like to give credit where credit is due. Much of the work was done by my brother Rob, and I do not mean to take that away from him. I helped with the bird itself little more than in a single photographed step that you will read about. With that in mind, I've heard much of what was involved and will be writing to my best knowledge of the process as a whole.
To begin, and for anyone who does not know, a Turducken is exactly what it sounds like – though not found anywhere in the wild. It is a Turkey that has been stuffed with a duck, which has then been stuffed with a chicken. When choosing birds, this is not simply a Russian doll matching game. One must also attempt to account for the total amount of food they wish to be serving. With that in mind, the following birds were collected and prepared for the so to be masterpiece:
Now, unless you consider yourself uncanny at stuffing objects, I think you'll agree that it appears difficult to get each of these birds within each other. So, next step is to de-bone the fowl. It is important to now realize that if you find a wild Turducken it is, in fact, a boneless creature (see sharks as another example). De-boning the birds is a delicate process and all aspects of your work space must be appropriate (including the atmosphere). It is recommended that while you work, large knife in hand, you have set yourself to listening to Wagner. Imagine walking into the kitchen to see your chef, knife in one hand – dead bird in the other, while the following blasts through the background: Ride of the Valkyries(and yes, you should continue to listen as you read!)
We know have 3 sheets of bird, and have on the side created a vat of stuffing (sounds delicious I know!). At this point the masterpiece must be assembled. This is a simple layering process. Lay down and open the turkey, and coat it in a solid layer of stuffing. Align the duck, centered and in the same orientation, and top that with another layer of stuffing. Finally lay on the chicken, once more the same way as the duck. See below for a series of photos that demonstrate this process.
What we now have is in no way suitable for cooking. The following process is what I refer to as “next level home ed: where cooking meats [punned :) ] sewing”. If you can imagine, attempting to cook this masterpiece as is would result in many dry and burned sections while leaving most of the middle raw and under cooked. To solve this, and improve presentation, we must prepare the Turducken, both in appearance and practice to look like a turkey. This involves folding the outer edges together and sewing the seem to keep the legendary Turducken closed and in one piece.
To do this you will need 5* things: the aforementioned Turducken, 2 extra hands, a hefty length of butcher's twine, and a crazy needle that looks kind of like a bent nail that has a hole in an end for thread (*depending on how sizes work out there may be a last necessity, but it will be mentioned later). For this one person will be holding and pulling the crazy bird closed while the other stitches the seam that spans the length of the creature. Start near, but not at the base of the Turkey (we'll get the very bottom at the end). Keep the stitches close together but as far from the edge of the skin as you can. The bird is quite stuffed and the stitches can easily tear. Proceed slowly and include as many stitches as possible. Once you've reached the top, tie off your stitches and stand the bird on its head. It is likely that your creation is too full to easily stitch the bottom closed. At this point it is very helpful to have kept some extra chicken skin that you convenient removed before stuffing that bird (yes, we removed the skin in addition to the bones of that one). Instead of forcing the turkey closed, carefully graft on some extra chicken skin and close off the Turducken completely. See below for the work done during this step.
We're almost there! Take your crazy bird (it now looks like no more than a fat turkey) and stick it in your oven. For cooking specifications, you'll need to know your own bird size, oven temperatures and available time. However, once the bird reaches appropriate temperature, it is done. Remove your beautiful lightly browned beast – carve – and serve. Be aware that different sections will have different ratios of turkey, duck, chicken and stuffing.
This is not the end of the tale of the Turducken however. There is further exploration that needs to be done and discussed. For these, I will simply touch on some concepts for future thoughts and inputs. The question has been raised if Newton's Heat Equation can accurately simulate the heating curve of a Turducken (and thus help perfect the predicted cooking times). Why is this question raised? There is always the question of truth to how long it will take to cook one's individual bird. However, the conventional turkey is basically a shell of bird surrounding a nearly hollow center that is filled with a variety of stuffing. The combination of bird, meat and stuffing creates a very non-uniformed body. By contrast, the super-dense, boneless Turducken is possibly as close as one can get food to be a uniformed sphere of meat. Should this work, many people could be saved much stress with regards to the time requirements of their turkeys.
Lastly, is the Turducken, the king of the Thanksgiving fowl? Below are 2 alternatives that have recently come to light. The first is the Turturkeykey – courtesy of How I Met Your Mother, and the second is the Turduckenen-duckenen – courtesy of Vi Hart.
Turturkeykey
Turduckenen-duckenen
I hope you enjoyed reading and look forward to testing your own in the near future!
Monday, October 1, 2012
The 5-Second Hierarchy
Many of us have at one point or another used the “Five Second Rule” and those few of us who (not including myself) have not used it have at least heard of it. So, for anyone who may be in the dark pertaining to this rule; the Five Second Rule states that if a piece of food should fall on the floor, then if you can retrieve it within five seconds, the food is still good to eat. With this rule in mind, it is an apt time to point out that not all 5 seconds are truly created equal.
First I need to address an issue that I have heard, but is completely ridiculous. Is there a considerable difference between “a short five seconds” and “a long five seconds”? No. Five seconds is in fact… five seconds. You could refer to it as one second that has passed five times, or perhaps a mere one twelfth of a minute. If you’re truly ambitious then we are actually working with one seven hundred and twentieth of an hour (I could keep going but I think my point has been proven). Now, if we look at this final unit of time it might appear to be “short” but as we just saw it is in fact the SAME time span as our original five seconds.
So, instead let us consider what aspects or characteristics might lead us to create exceptions to the Five Second Rule. To some extent, each of the ideas I’ll present are related, but I will treat them all individually. The first exception is location – that is – where are you that you are considering to employ the Five Second Rule (to now be abbreviated as the FSR). The easy examples might be dropping food on a dining table surface, or a kitchen counter, etc. These are clean surfaces that we clean and cook on and it’s intuitive to pick up food to eat off of them. On these the FSR barely even applies.
The next iteration of location is I think where the FSR was designed to be used. A clean non-carpeted floor that you own (your house’s hardwood floor?), a well-kept grass field, etc. In these conditions we might be able to agree that immediate impact with the surface might not ruin our food, but we’d ideally not want to let it linger their too long. This however is a fine line between an appearingly-clean floor in a public area or a patch of dirt and leaves in the midst of the wilderness. At this point we begin to tailor the FSR down to a zero second rule, and often times consider whatever it is we had been at one time considering a lost cause.
But location is not the lone factor that we have to account for. It is also important to consider what type of food you have. For example, if you are eating a liquid – soup for example – the FSR is right out! You spill your soup on the floor, I don’t care where you are, you’re done with that. On the other hand, we can consider hard, smooth solid foods, such as an apple. An apple can be dropped even on a patch of dirt and might sit there for close to a minute without anyone noticing. A quick brush with the sleeve and it’s good to go! Have you bitten the apple – now maybe we at least have a consideration, but I’d wager it’s still good. Similarly, sticky foods tend to reduce the five seconds again down to a 0-1 second. Chewing gum – lollipops – barring them landing on a super clean and smooth counter-like surface is never going to be picked up.
Another important aspect of the rule is “what kind of motivation are we working on?” The first and most likely form of motivation is hunger. Have you eaten breakfast? Lunch? Dinner? Today? This week? This scale is I think pretty obvious and has a direct relation to the possible duration of the FSR. This could perhaps be modeled by (Allowed Floor Time (s)) = (2 Seconds/meal)(# missed meals) + (5 seconds). Note: I have collected no data to determine this model, but am proposing it as a theory. However, I think it is clear that the hungrier we are, the less picky we become about the location in which we find our food.
So now one might ask what other motivations might exist? Was there a dare? Is it a competition? Are money or fame on the line? If so, anything could happen and we are now outside the bounds of what the FSR covers. At this point, there is even the possibility to eat something that we KNOW to be no good just to prove a point or gross out a friend. At this point we all accept it as a violation of the FSR – not an exception.
There still lingers the occasional extreme though. More than once I’ve been with a friend or acquaintance as we’ve passed a restaurant – and we were hungry…granted – and there was leftover food that had not yet been cleaned up. I have never done this, and I have never endorsed this, but twice I have seen said friend/acquaintance relieve the leftover dishes of their food. While I frowned at the maneuver, reports both times were that it was total worth it.
So, in conclusion I do not presume to have listed a comprehensive list of exceptions to the FSR. However, the rule cannot be adjusted for a “short” or “long” five seconds. Five seconds is always the same amount of time. The question regarding food is not about the length of 5 seconds under consideration, but rather what considerations allow us to adjust the time restriction OF five seconds. Consider where you are, what you’re eating… are there outside considerations like hunger? I’ve spent plenty of time in the woods and justified eating something not necessarily “clean” with the FSR. However, I feel it is important to understand what to consider when using the rule as justification.
First I need to address an issue that I have heard, but is completely ridiculous. Is there a considerable difference between “a short five seconds” and “a long five seconds”? No. Five seconds is in fact… five seconds. You could refer to it as one second that has passed five times, or perhaps a mere one twelfth of a minute. If you’re truly ambitious then we are actually working with one seven hundred and twentieth of an hour (I could keep going but I think my point has been proven). Now, if we look at this final unit of time it might appear to be “short” but as we just saw it is in fact the SAME time span as our original five seconds.
So, instead let us consider what aspects or characteristics might lead us to create exceptions to the Five Second Rule. To some extent, each of the ideas I’ll present are related, but I will treat them all individually. The first exception is location – that is – where are you that you are considering to employ the Five Second Rule (to now be abbreviated as the FSR). The easy examples might be dropping food on a dining table surface, or a kitchen counter, etc. These are clean surfaces that we clean and cook on and it’s intuitive to pick up food to eat off of them. On these the FSR barely even applies.
The next iteration of location is I think where the FSR was designed to be used. A clean non-carpeted floor that you own (your house’s hardwood floor?), a well-kept grass field, etc. In these conditions we might be able to agree that immediate impact with the surface might not ruin our food, but we’d ideally not want to let it linger their too long. This however is a fine line between an appearingly-clean floor in a public area or a patch of dirt and leaves in the midst of the wilderness. At this point we begin to tailor the FSR down to a zero second rule, and often times consider whatever it is we had been at one time considering a lost cause.
But location is not the lone factor that we have to account for. It is also important to consider what type of food you have. For example, if you are eating a liquid – soup for example – the FSR is right out! You spill your soup on the floor, I don’t care where you are, you’re done with that. On the other hand, we can consider hard, smooth solid foods, such as an apple. An apple can be dropped even on a patch of dirt and might sit there for close to a minute without anyone noticing. A quick brush with the sleeve and it’s good to go! Have you bitten the apple – now maybe we at least have a consideration, but I’d wager it’s still good. Similarly, sticky foods tend to reduce the five seconds again down to a 0-1 second. Chewing gum – lollipops – barring them landing on a super clean and smooth counter-like surface is never going to be picked up.
Another important aspect of the rule is “what kind of motivation are we working on?” The first and most likely form of motivation is hunger. Have you eaten breakfast? Lunch? Dinner? Today? This week? This scale is I think pretty obvious and has a direct relation to the possible duration of the FSR. This could perhaps be modeled by (Allowed Floor Time (s)) = (2 Seconds/meal)(# missed meals) + (5 seconds). Note: I have collected no data to determine this model, but am proposing it as a theory. However, I think it is clear that the hungrier we are, the less picky we become about the location in which we find our food.
So now one might ask what other motivations might exist? Was there a dare? Is it a competition? Are money or fame on the line? If so, anything could happen and we are now outside the bounds of what the FSR covers. At this point, there is even the possibility to eat something that we KNOW to be no good just to prove a point or gross out a friend. At this point we all accept it as a violation of the FSR – not an exception.
There still lingers the occasional extreme though. More than once I’ve been with a friend or acquaintance as we’ve passed a restaurant – and we were hungry…granted – and there was leftover food that had not yet been cleaned up. I have never done this, and I have never endorsed this, but twice I have seen said friend/acquaintance relieve the leftover dishes of their food. While I frowned at the maneuver, reports both times were that it was total worth it.
So, in conclusion I do not presume to have listed a comprehensive list of exceptions to the FSR. However, the rule cannot be adjusted for a “short” or “long” five seconds. Five seconds is always the same amount of time. The question regarding food is not about the length of 5 seconds under consideration, but rather what considerations allow us to adjust the time restriction OF five seconds. Consider where you are, what you’re eating… are there outside considerations like hunger? I’ve spent plenty of time in the woods and justified eating something not necessarily “clean” with the FSR. However, I feel it is important to understand what to consider when using the rule as justification.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
A Distasteful Claim
There are many things that advertisements do well. Among those things include creating wonderful pictures, catchy slogans, and silly puns. The job of advertisements is to make one’s products seems superior to one’s opponents as well as more memorable. However, honesty continues to rear its ugly head. There are likely times that advertisements could, and want to, say more, but are bound by not being allowed to falsely advertise.
This leads to an entertaining series of followings. As a company creating an advertisement, one begins to examine how to say as much as possible without saying anything at all. What do I mean you might ask? Well, let’s first consider a set of energy drinks. You know the ones I mean. The one’s designed for athletic appeal, and are all colorful and now have way more colors than is ever necessary in an edible substance? Well, what is the first thing you think of when you play their commercials back in your head? For me personally, I always remember that they have “more electrolytes”. Perhaps “more” electrolytes is not correct. Maybe they only advertise the presence ‘of’ electrolytes.
So what is going on here? Why are we talking about electrolytes? Well it sounds so much more elaborate than saying “salt”. Many of these drinks could be replaced by versions of salt water, and while they might then not taste as good, they would still be loaded up with electrolytes. Similarly, prior to the development of these products, athletes often got themselves “refueled” by eating small salt cubes when drinking water at games. Words like electrolytes are games companies play to both make their product more memorable and more impressive without actually saying anything at all.
Now, I don’t claim that at any point these companies are lying, nor that I wouldn’t do the same were I in their job. But, being a consumer (and one who uses those aforementioned products myself) I feel that I am allowed to nit-pick technicalities, even if just to be difficult.
But, are these companies and their “electrolytes” the only culprits of advertising that says nothing while saying more? Definitely not. My recent favorite example came up when cooking with a friend of mine. We could not help but recalling the food commercials that advertise, “now with more taste”… I think if you examine what you read and listen to you’ll find that you too have heard this phrase. A common way for a company to release a newer version of a product and say it’s improved, even if it has perhaps only been repackaged (note – it’s possible there were also changes made… I have not actually done research into these ideas).
So, “now with more taste,” what does that mean? Well, I think our first impression is that the food is more delicious (assuming of course we’re discussing food). But, perhaps it’s more thought-provoking to describe this as meaning “flavorful”. Interesting… How many flavors are there in the world? Do they all come from taste or do some come from smell too? Would those be the same? Let’s assume they are. So what has flavor? What could have more flavors?
Chocolate has flavor. I love chocolate. And more ‘chocolately’ chocolate – that just seems to be a huge upgrade. How about something less obvious - orange juice. A common (though not exclusively) breakfast beverage. Intuitively, I would suspect “freshly squeezed” orange juice to be more flavorful than orange juice from concentrate, and I personally prefer it. But, what if those oranges had gone bad? I think we can all agree that the orange juice would not be as pleasant, but would it be less flavorful? Would it have less taste? Or does it still have more taste, more flavor, and we just don’t find that appealing.
How about a spaghetti picture? The spaghetti, pre-cooked, pre-decorated is relatively bland, but I’ve been known to munch on a piece from time to time. Doesn’t that spaghetti have more taste once slathered in clue, paper and glitter? I can only assume it does, though I am certainly not attracted to that sense of increased flavor. From here it would be easy to continue down the road of “things with flavor that become less desirable when they get more taste,” but not all of those lead to charming mental pictures.
So, while I don’t mean to say that all things advertised as “now with more taste” are bad or lying. Similarly, athletic beverages do indeed have electrolytes, even if that is true for a common breakfast juice. What I hope becomes a take-away from reading this is a healthy skepticism when listening to and reading advertisements. Think about what is being said before assuming that it’s something that matters.
This leads to an entertaining series of followings. As a company creating an advertisement, one begins to examine how to say as much as possible without saying anything at all. What do I mean you might ask? Well, let’s first consider a set of energy drinks. You know the ones I mean. The one’s designed for athletic appeal, and are all colorful and now have way more colors than is ever necessary in an edible substance? Well, what is the first thing you think of when you play their commercials back in your head? For me personally, I always remember that they have “more electrolytes”. Perhaps “more” electrolytes is not correct. Maybe they only advertise the presence ‘of’ electrolytes.
So what is going on here? Why are we talking about electrolytes? Well it sounds so much more elaborate than saying “salt”. Many of these drinks could be replaced by versions of salt water, and while they might then not taste as good, they would still be loaded up with electrolytes. Similarly, prior to the development of these products, athletes often got themselves “refueled” by eating small salt cubes when drinking water at games. Words like electrolytes are games companies play to both make their product more memorable and more impressive without actually saying anything at all.
Now, I don’t claim that at any point these companies are lying, nor that I wouldn’t do the same were I in their job. But, being a consumer (and one who uses those aforementioned products myself) I feel that I am allowed to nit-pick technicalities, even if just to be difficult.
But, are these companies and their “electrolytes” the only culprits of advertising that says nothing while saying more? Definitely not. My recent favorite example came up when cooking with a friend of mine. We could not help but recalling the food commercials that advertise, “now with more taste”… I think if you examine what you read and listen to you’ll find that you too have heard this phrase. A common way for a company to release a newer version of a product and say it’s improved, even if it has perhaps only been repackaged (note – it’s possible there were also changes made… I have not actually done research into these ideas).
So, “now with more taste,” what does that mean? Well, I think our first impression is that the food is more delicious (assuming of course we’re discussing food). But, perhaps it’s more thought-provoking to describe this as meaning “flavorful”. Interesting… How many flavors are there in the world? Do they all come from taste or do some come from smell too? Would those be the same? Let’s assume they are. So what has flavor? What could have more flavors?
Chocolate has flavor. I love chocolate. And more ‘chocolately’ chocolate – that just seems to be a huge upgrade. How about something less obvious - orange juice. A common (though not exclusively) breakfast beverage. Intuitively, I would suspect “freshly squeezed” orange juice to be more flavorful than orange juice from concentrate, and I personally prefer it. But, what if those oranges had gone bad? I think we can all agree that the orange juice would not be as pleasant, but would it be less flavorful? Would it have less taste? Or does it still have more taste, more flavor, and we just don’t find that appealing.
How about a spaghetti picture? The spaghetti, pre-cooked, pre-decorated is relatively bland, but I’ve been known to munch on a piece from time to time. Doesn’t that spaghetti have more taste once slathered in clue, paper and glitter? I can only assume it does, though I am certainly not attracted to that sense of increased flavor. From here it would be easy to continue down the road of “things with flavor that become less desirable when they get more taste,” but not all of those lead to charming mental pictures.
So, while I don’t mean to say that all things advertised as “now with more taste” are bad or lying. Similarly, athletic beverages do indeed have electrolytes, even if that is true for a common breakfast juice. What I hope becomes a take-away from reading this is a healthy skepticism when listening to and reading advertisements. Think about what is being said before assuming that it’s something that matters.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
An Honest Truth
Interestingly enough, the title that I've chosen for this blog is just as problematic as the concept itself. As is often the case, I am frustrated by sayings and phrases I hear that are, by definition, repetitive or contradictory. So, yes, I realize that this now spoils some of the surprise of the rant that may follow, but I cannot help but acknowledge the redundancy in my own title.
Anyway, this title (despite being a common saying) was not the phrase that led to this conversation. Rather, in my attempt to develop a creative or intriguing title I stumbled upon a second related redundancy. My original intention was to draw your attention to the phrase "true fact". More commonly used in the full sentence (yes, I'm thinking of just this one) such as, "that's a true fact". WELL DUH! But, before I go on my tirade, lets confirm our impressions:
The following are based on the Oxford English Dictionary (online):
fact: "Something that has really occurred or is actually the case; something certainly known to be of this character; hence, a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction"
I would like to call attention to my favorite set of word "a particular truth".
true: "Of a statement or belief: Consistent with fact; agreeing with the reality; representing the thing as it is."
Again, let attention be called to "Consistent with fact".
Need I say more? Likely not, but I will continue anyway! So, "true fact" is referring to a statement or thing that is a true - consistent with fact - fact - a particular truth. This is not only redundant but its circular! (I do love circles... see my previous writing on simplifying the area formula: http://tb13logbored.blogspot.com/2011/07/simplified-solution.html) So, we could argue the merits of this claim two ways. First, it is always correct and therefore always accurate to say. Is it true? Is it a fact? If its one it's both. If its both then it's obviously a "true fact".
Secondly, what if we consider the phrase "true fact" to be self-fulfilling. Can a statement of claim be true without being a fact? Can a fact be a fact without being true? I fear that perhaps the claim that an idea or thought is a "true fact" actually defeats the authenticity of an argument by presenting a claim that is consistent with only (and supports only) itself.
So, now that my main idea has been presented, I need to address the issue of my title. I think most of us have at one point heard the phrase "it's the honest truth" (or one similar to it). Again, referring to the dictionary, we can find the definition of honest: "That deals fairly and uprightly in speech and act; sincere, truthful, candid; that will not lie, cheat, or steal." Once again we can identify a keyword in "truthful". Well, if it is actually the truth, I certainly hope it's truthful!
So, i'm not saying you should never hear the phrases, or that you should be mad at those who do use them. However, I'd like to point out the redundancies that exist so that we can simplify our language, and clean our arguments. Language is an art. Be concise in what you say. The more wordy you become, the more you hide the truth from the eyes of the many.
Anyway, this title (despite being a common saying) was not the phrase that led to this conversation. Rather, in my attempt to develop a creative or intriguing title I stumbled upon a second related redundancy. My original intention was to draw your attention to the phrase "true fact". More commonly used in the full sentence (yes, I'm thinking of just this one) such as, "that's a true fact". WELL DUH! But, before I go on my tirade, lets confirm our impressions:
The following are based on the Oxford English Dictionary (online):
fact: "Something that has really occurred or is actually the case; something certainly known to be of this character; hence, a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction"
I would like to call attention to my favorite set of word "a particular truth".
true: "Of a statement or belief: Consistent with fact; agreeing with the reality; representing the thing as it is."
Again, let attention be called to "Consistent with fact".
Need I say more? Likely not, but I will continue anyway! So, "true fact" is referring to a statement or thing that is a true - consistent with fact - fact - a particular truth. This is not only redundant but its circular! (I do love circles... see my previous writing on simplifying the area formula: http://tb13logbored.blogspot.com/2011/07/simplified-solution.html) So, we could argue the merits of this claim two ways. First, it is always correct and therefore always accurate to say. Is it true? Is it a fact? If its one it's both. If its both then it's obviously a "true fact".
Secondly, what if we consider the phrase "true fact" to be self-fulfilling. Can a statement of claim be true without being a fact? Can a fact be a fact without being true? I fear that perhaps the claim that an idea or thought is a "true fact" actually defeats the authenticity of an argument by presenting a claim that is consistent with only (and supports only) itself.
So, now that my main idea has been presented, I need to address the issue of my title. I think most of us have at one point heard the phrase "it's the honest truth" (or one similar to it). Again, referring to the dictionary, we can find the definition of honest: "That deals fairly and uprightly in speech and act; sincere, truthful, candid; that will not lie, cheat, or steal." Once again we can identify a keyword in "truthful". Well, if it is actually the truth, I certainly hope it's truthful!
So, i'm not saying you should never hear the phrases, or that you should be mad at those who do use them. However, I'd like to point out the redundancies that exist so that we can simplify our language, and clean our arguments. Language is an art. Be concise in what you say. The more wordy you become, the more you hide the truth from the eyes of the many.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Who's Plan Was It?
Many of those who know me, or have known me for a long duration have come to acknowledged that I hate planning things. I find that the majority of times, decisions (equally as good) can be made on the spot, and are often motivated by the deadlines themselves. However, when I do attempt to make plans, its inevitably a disaster. Either the plan falls apart, in which case it was a lot of effort with no gain, or the plan was flawed and things need to be adjusted. What I find most frustrating is when plans can be made time and time again, and they STILL don't help things actually happen. As a result, I offer many people lots of "probably"s and "maybe"s. Most of the time the time these words are synonymous with "yes", but they still allow for the leeway to adjust plans.
Now, my personal battles that exist with making plans are not the purpose of what I have to say right now. In actuality, (or what I had planned to talk about) is the phrase "planning ahead". Now, before you read further take a moment to think about that statement.
...
Have you thought about it? Notice anything wrong? Well, the phrase is used by a HUGE percentage of people and is completely redundant. I myself use it, and having made this realization, it bothers me every time. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "plan (verb)" as the following:
"decide on and make arrangements for in advance"
At this point I hope its clear that if you are indeed planning (as you presumably are if you said you were "planning ahead") then it is by definition ahead. Ask yourself this: When was the last time you sat down one afternoon and decided to plan yesterday? That morning? Last night? Never! The thought not only seems ridiculous but sounds wrong. So instead, we as a society go around notifying our peers that we are planning ahead. Well done.
So, the next time you are going to make yourself a plan for yourself, think ahead, and tell everyone that you are merely goign to go plan.
Now, my personal battles that exist with making plans are not the purpose of what I have to say right now. In actuality, (or what I had planned to talk about) is the phrase "planning ahead". Now, before you read further take a moment to think about that statement.
...
Have you thought about it? Notice anything wrong? Well, the phrase is used by a HUGE percentage of people and is completely redundant. I myself use it, and having made this realization, it bothers me every time. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "plan (verb)" as the following:
"decide on and make arrangements for in advance"
At this point I hope its clear that if you are indeed planning (as you presumably are if you said you were "planning ahead") then it is by definition ahead. Ask yourself this: When was the last time you sat down one afternoon and decided to plan yesterday? That morning? Last night? Never! The thought not only seems ridiculous but sounds wrong. So instead, we as a society go around notifying our peers that we are planning ahead. Well done.
So, the next time you are going to make yourself a plan for yourself, think ahead, and tell everyone that you are merely goign to go plan.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
The Pop-tart Rule
Many of the things we do in life are guided, if not governed by a set of rules. These rules are sometimes big, "important" things, and sometimes they are merely tricks and reminders that help us better our own lives with suggestions. An example of a larger rule is Gravity. It sits there, pulling you downwards when all ya want to do is jump really, REALLY high. But no, Gravity says you may not, and so we don't. Then, to smaller rules, rules that could be broken, but we choose not to because by following them we have improved the standards by which we live. These rules include academic honesty, "please and thank-you", and all sorts of chivalrous deeds that were done back in the days of knights, damsels, and distressed moments of dragons and tall towers.
Anyway, I am here to share a rule that I have made and has helped guide me in many different circumstances through my life (this far). "One Pop-tart is two Pop-tarts". Now, to those of you who have not heard me say this, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking this comment is stupid, even impossible. Perhaps, I am actually being a hypocrite to myself and developing a saying that is either redundant, contradictory, or altogether false. But, before anyone jumps down my throat I'd like to call everyone's attention to the way in which Pop-tarts are sold. When you buy "one" Pop-tart, what you actually receive is a little crinkly and silver package, in which there are TWO Pop-tarts. Thus, one Pop-tart is actually two Pop-tarts.
So, why is this a rule? Do I just REALLY like to eat Pop-tarts? Actually no. I don't even remember the last time I had a Pop-tart. However, this example and saying provides a model that can be used to describe a multitude of facets in life, both for entertainment and safety. I will begin, and be more brief with my example for entertainment. Suppose you, like me, were at times (if not always) a gamer. And suppose that you, being said gamer, is with his friends playing a game. In truth, it is good, competitive play and good times are being had by all. But, as the time approaches to be off to a new activity, errand or event, the responsible member of the group deems "this will be our last game". Unfortunately, after hours of GOOD games, you have a complete and utter blow-out. Nobody wants to end that way. The winner feels unchallenged and the losers feel...well not good... But, the claim for "last one has been made". Luckily for us, we now have a rule that can blur the meaning of "one". Upon completion of this so-called "last game" a player may invoke the "one Pop-tart is two Pop-tarts" rule. Thus, a new last game is easy enough to be justified.
My second use for this rule is a much more practical one. Those of you who live in White-Tailed Deer infested regions will know exactly what I'm talking about. Those of you who don't, I suggest you take notes. If you have ever driven a car, and this car that you drove was in a place that had deer, then its likely that you've had to slam on your breaks to avoid hitting said deer and creating an entire Bambi complex for any small children who may be in your car. (If you have not had this experience...I suggest you pay attention.) This is a perfect example of when the Pop-tart rule can be applied. Imagine its late at night and you're driving and you see a deer go frolicking across the road. HIT THE BREAKS. Why you ask? The deer already crossed after all. The reason is "one Pop-tart is two Pop-tarts". There is NEVER just one deer. Much like fishing, "you never catch the one you see". With deer, its not the one that already crossed that you're going to get. And deer NEVER travel alone. Where there is one deer, there is two deer (if not more). So, when you see a deer cross the road, remind yourself that one Pop-tart is in fact two Pop-tarts, slow down, and make sure you know where the rest are.
If you find yourself in another context in which you find this rule particularly relevant, I would love to hear about it. Of the "casual rules and guidelines" that I have created for myself through the years, this is among my favorites and would love to know other examples of contexts that it is particularly useful. Hope you enjoyed. Remember, play more games, same some wildlife!
Anyway, I am here to share a rule that I have made and has helped guide me in many different circumstances through my life (this far). "One Pop-tart is two Pop-tarts". Now, to those of you who have not heard me say this, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking this comment is stupid, even impossible. Perhaps, I am actually being a hypocrite to myself and developing a saying that is either redundant, contradictory, or altogether false. But, before anyone jumps down my throat I'd like to call everyone's attention to the way in which Pop-tarts are sold. When you buy "one" Pop-tart, what you actually receive is a little crinkly and silver package, in which there are TWO Pop-tarts. Thus, one Pop-tart is actually two Pop-tarts.
So, why is this a rule? Do I just REALLY like to eat Pop-tarts? Actually no. I don't even remember the last time I had a Pop-tart. However, this example and saying provides a model that can be used to describe a multitude of facets in life, both for entertainment and safety. I will begin, and be more brief with my example for entertainment. Suppose you, like me, were at times (if not always) a gamer. And suppose that you, being said gamer, is with his friends playing a game. In truth, it is good, competitive play and good times are being had by all. But, as the time approaches to be off to a new activity, errand or event, the responsible member of the group deems "this will be our last game". Unfortunately, after hours of GOOD games, you have a complete and utter blow-out. Nobody wants to end that way. The winner feels unchallenged and the losers feel...well not good... But, the claim for "last one has been made". Luckily for us, we now have a rule that can blur the meaning of "one". Upon completion of this so-called "last game" a player may invoke the "one Pop-tart is two Pop-tarts" rule. Thus, a new last game is easy enough to be justified.
My second use for this rule is a much more practical one. Those of you who live in White-Tailed Deer infested regions will know exactly what I'm talking about. Those of you who don't, I suggest you take notes. If you have ever driven a car, and this car that you drove was in a place that had deer, then its likely that you've had to slam on your breaks to avoid hitting said deer and creating an entire Bambi complex for any small children who may be in your car. (If you have not had this experience...I suggest you pay attention.) This is a perfect example of when the Pop-tart rule can be applied. Imagine its late at night and you're driving and you see a deer go frolicking across the road. HIT THE BREAKS. Why you ask? The deer already crossed after all. The reason is "one Pop-tart is two Pop-tarts". There is NEVER just one deer. Much like fishing, "you never catch the one you see". With deer, its not the one that already crossed that you're going to get. And deer NEVER travel alone. Where there is one deer, there is two deer (if not more). So, when you see a deer cross the road, remind yourself that one Pop-tart is in fact two Pop-tarts, slow down, and make sure you know where the rest are.
If you find yourself in another context in which you find this rule particularly relevant, I would love to hear about it. Of the "casual rules and guidelines" that I have created for myself through the years, this is among my favorites and would love to know other examples of contexts that it is particularly useful. Hope you enjoyed. Remember, play more games, same some wildlife!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)