Tom's Views

Question: What determines the color of neon lights?  Answer: As in just about all gaseous discharge lamps, the color of neon lights is set by several factors, including:

1. The type of gas inside the neon light’s glass tubing.
2. The amount gas (pressure) inside the tube.
3. The type of fluorescent coating on the inside surface of the tubing
4. The color of the glass tubing itself.
5. Combinations of the above factors can produce colors in neon lights that span the entire visible spectrum and beyond.
6. To a much lesser degree, the amount of voltage applied can affect the emitted light color.

For an explanation of each of these color-determining factors, see below.

1. The Type of Gas Helps Set the Color of a Neon Light.
There are typically two gasses used in neon lights: neon (of course) and mercury vapor. Even though the mercury vapor neon lights contain no neon, they are still collectively referred to as ‘neon lights’ as they bear most of the characteristics of neon lights, except that they contain no neon.

Mercury vapor, when placed inside a clear, non coated glass tube, and subjected to a couple thousand volts of electricity, glows a sort of gentle blue color. This shade can be observed in street lights when they first come on and they are still very dim.

On the other hand, use neon gas, and you get a fiery, coal red glow such as seen coming from neon light beer signs. Neon requires higher voltages to create and sustain ionization in the colorful neon light.  Further, the amount of voltage required to get a healthy red glow from neon depends on the pressure of the neon gas inside as well as the length of the tube. A five-foot long tube filled with neon requires about 7000 volts to glow. Neon lights containing neon gas are said to be “red-based” while the neon lights utilizing mercury vapor are known as “blue-based” neon lights.

2. The Amount of Pressure Affects Color of Neon Lights
The pressure of the gas in the glass neon light tube is crucial. Too little pressure, too much air, or too much vacuum, and you’ll need prohibitively large amounts of voltage to get the gas to ionize, conduct current,  and glow. On the other hand, put too much gas in, and neon loses its vivid red color when ionized, and becomes more of a pink or white. To get good color and solid flicker-free lighting, the pressure must be controlled very precisely.

3. The type of Fluorescent Coating Affects Neon Light Color
Neon lights did not earn their colorful, vibrant reputation by using clear tubes of glass filled with neon gas alone. Without other mechanisms, the only colors you’d have would be red (neon) and blue (mercury vapor).

But neon lights come in just about every color of the rainbow, via the employment of the principle of fluorescence. Have you ever seen those brightly colored paints at Spencer’s gift shops that, when placed under a black light, glow unusually brightly? These are fluorescent paints, because they have the ability to absorb light energy of one color or wavelength, and convert it to another color. These paints convert the near ultraviolet rays of a black light into visible light. This makes them appear to glow without external stimuli. And that makes them intriguing to us younger folk.

The chemical makeup of these paints determines the optimum color of input light as well as the color they radiate after the input light is converted. Similar chemicals are applied as thin coatings on the inside of the glass tubes in neon lights, to produce many different colors. Mercury vapor radiates much ultra violet light when ionized (conducting electricity). The amount of visible light produced is rather small. But by applying a fluorescent coating, most of that ultraviolet light is converted to a more useful, visible energy. Blue, purple, pink, green, cyan, yellow, and white colors are produced this way.

On the other hand, similar effects are produced with neon in the tube. Neon produces a fair amount of infrared light that can be converted into visible energy as well. Pink is probably the most popular color produced using the neon gas and fluorescence combo inside a neon light.

4. The Color of the Glass Tube Itself Also Influences The Ultimate Neon Light Color
Coloring the glass of a lamp to make it emit a different color than it otherwise would has been used for a long time now to color incandescent lights (such as Christmas lights). A transparent or translucent coating is applied to the outside of the glass that prevents all but the desired color of light to pass through. In neon, you might start with a white light, and apply a nova blue filter to the glass, for a really bright, deep blue light. The extra bright neon that has appeared over the past 20 to 25 years employs this method. You can recognize this when the light is off. If the tube is colored something other than white, then this filtration system is its mode of operation of the neon light. A white tube means that method 3 is how the color is produced when it’s turned on.

5. Combinations of the Above
By applying a fluorescent coating to the inside of the tube as well as a filter to the glass itself or to the outside of it, all the visible colors can be produced in a wide array of intensities.

6.  On voltage determining neon light color: The voltage level controls more the intensity of the light rather than its color.  However, be careful not to apply too much voltage, as this can alter the chemical makeup of the neon and render it incapable of producing any light at all.  I experiment with those little neon light bulbs that you see in elevator button panels, old radios and so on.  I found that excessive voltage makes them glow quite brightly for a short time.  But they then burn out.

It appears however, that LED-filled tubes are supplanting gaseous discharge neon and fluorescent lights, because they require less voltage, are easier to fabricate, are more rugged and thus, are harder to break, are more efficient, and the LED lights are fast becoming cheaper than true neon lights, though they faithfully duplicate the brilliance and vibrancy of neon lights.  Plus, LED lights in a neon-style configuration can be adjusted by the user to emit any color in the rainbow.  The light color in traditional neon lights is set at the factory and cannot be changed by the end user.  Still the transition from neon to LED is slow at present.  So true neon lights will be popular for some decades to come I suspect.  Long live neon lights.  I love ‘em!

Tom Hesley

Other Gaseous Discharge Lamp Posts

• CFL Advantages and Disadvantages

I owned the  Sony MDR-V6 Studio Monitor Pro Headphones  for several months in 2006, and in that time, I played them over many evenings with several CD players, headphone amps, mixing boards, computer sound cards, and stereo receivers.  Allow me to   review the MDR-V6s here because I thought them exceptional audio listening devices in lots of ways.  The MDR-V6 headphones look and perform very much like the Sony MDR-V500 and MDR-7506 units I’ve also owned and discussed elsewhere in this blog.  They’re similar in sound, weight, comfort level, style of ear cushions, ease of ear cushion replacement, headband composition, size adjustment, and cabling.  The only real difference I found between the MDR-V6 and MDR-7506 headphones is that the MDR-7506s come with gold-plated 3.5mm connectors.  The MDR-V6s and MDR V500s appear to have either nickel or silver-plated connectors.  However, I found no difference in performance due to the gold connectors.  Otherwise, just about everything I said about these other headphones, also applies to the MDR-V6 headphones.  Thus, the following:

The MDRV6 Sony stereo headphones offer perhaps the best sound of any headphones in their price class.  They replicate the high frequencies with crystal clarity, and spare the heavy bass; especially once you’ve adapted to listening to the Sennheiser HD-650s.  But the bass level can be adjusted through an equalizer.  Actually, the reduced bass output makes these phones quite nice for iPod listening, since iPods are heavy on the bass anyhow.  I’ve used the MDR-V6 headphones with iPods on lots of train trips, and found them relaxing enough to sleep by.  I’ve owned many headphones from Sony, Koss, Grado, Sony, and Apple over the past three plus decades, the Sony MDR V6 units rank right up there among my favorite headphones.  I only sold them because I already had several pairs of the MDR-7506s, and I needed the money besides.

Given how little these cost (less than $100 on eBay currently), I found little to gripe about except that the ear cushions quickly wear out (after less than two years).  I had to replace them on my used set because they begin shedding bits and pieces of the fake leather coating on them.  But replacement ear cushions for the MDR-V6 headphones can be had for roughly $10 a pair on eBay and directly from Sony.  So this drawback is but a minor irritant.

So if $50 to $100 is all you can afford to spend on a quite-adequate pair of earphones, then I’d highly suggest the Sony MDRV6 headphones.  For that money, you get a fairly flat and hard-wearing pair of quality audio head gear, that work well in the studio, in transit, and just about any casual listening environment you’d care to set up.

Benefits Of The Sony MDR-V6 Headphones

• The MDR-V6 headphones are quite light.  In fact, they’re light enough, and offer a wide enough range of headband adjustment, that they do not press too hard against my eyeglasses. Thus, I never have to remove the eyeglasses while listening.
• The headband itself on the MDR-V6 headphones includes spongy padding as well that further enhances overall comfort level, and matches the sheen and texture of the ear cushions.  These phones in fact, feel as comfortable as they sound good.
• The MDR-V6 headphones look as good as they sound, yes.  They’re black with silver trim with a red and gold “For Digital” sticker on the back of each phone.  This gives them a simple yet sleek and modern hi-tech veneer.
• The MDR-V6 headphones offer fold-able ear pieces, which withdraw up inside the headband.  This shrinks the bulk of the overall unit down to a small enough size, that it fits in the included black pouch for protection from dust and other forces, hostile to headphones.
• The MDRV6 headphones can play loud enough, with the wide dynamic range over most of the audio frequency band.  This suits them particularly for widely-varying musical volume levels, such as those encountered in classical music.
• For listing to the more “always-loud” pop style music, the MDR-V6 headphones can play sufficiently loud to sting my ears without any noticeable gain in distortion or fidelity loss.
• While the connecting audio cable cannot be unplugged from the unit, replacement is easy with a screwdriver, cutters, and a soldering iron.
• I found the MDRV6 headphones tremendously light; especially after having adapted to wearing the Koss Tech 2 headphones for more than ten years prior. They’re even lighter than my Sennheiser HD-650 phones, and I thought those were light.
• Thus, I could wear the MDR-V6 headphones for hours at an occasion without any irritation whatsoever.  The music you’re listening to come to irritate you out way before these headphones fatigue your ears.
• New cables can easily be found from numerous Internet vendors including eBay.
• The MDR-V6 headphones can be worn with equal comfort either way (left earphone on left ear, or left earphone on right ear).  The angle adjustment on each earpiece probably accounts for this good aspect that I utilize when hearing those cheaper hit compilation CDs, where the stereo left and right channels are mastered backwards from the original LP or single versions.
• The MDRV6s reduce surrounding noise adequately for somewhat quiet environments, which is a useful feature of their closed-air design. A metal back plate boxes in the driver speaker in each earpiece, and this helps keep sound both in and out.
• Thus, there’s not much audio leakage with the MDR-V6s.  So, these are a good choice to listen to when other people are near and wish to be uninterrupted by your musing listening.
• The MDR-V6 headphones, despite their lightness, seem quite forgiving of abuse.  I’ve often dropped these earphones on the table or floor when done listening, with no resulting defects.  They’re not easily broken, and thus, hold up well in rough listening locations such as studios, DJ gigs, and travel settings.
• An iPod drives the MDR-V6 headphones quite well.
• You need no equalizer to tone down the bass response of the MDRV6 headphones.  They sound pretty nice with “flat” music sources. While a trifle strong on the high mid-range audio, they’re not so bad that they require an equalizer; though an equalizer does make them sound really spectacular when you lower the mid-range just a bit.  Be careful of how much bass you apply, as this can make the drivers rattle, and potentially blow them out.
• These headphones sport foamy, soft ear cushions, coated with a thin, resilient black film that gives them a soft, shiny leathery texture.  This further enhances the comfort of the MDRV6 headphones.
• The ear cushions have oval-shaped openings that allow them to work nicely as an ear-surrounding design.  However, these openings are rather small, such that my ears just barely fit inside.  Therefore, the inner edges of the cushion rims always touch my ears when wearing.  This might be a problem with other phones, whose ear cushions are not as soft as those in these MDR-V6s.  But this causes little discomfort with this studio monitor pro grade headset.
• These silky soft ear pads are medium sized in circumference, but not terribly deep.  Thus, the front of the driver speaker touches my ear.  But again with the overall softness of the ear cushions and the cloth that covers the driver, this does not detract from long periods of comfortable listening for me.

What I Dislike About The Sony MDR-V6 Headphones

As I mentioned earlier, given how cheaply priced these headphones are, I found none too much to lawfully complain about in them.  But here are several gripes I managed to scratch out after considerable effort:

• These phones are not equipped with gold connectors; which provide the most reliably connection to the audio source.  But I never had problems with corrosion or other forces to which a gold connector is immune.
• The cables are not as easy to replace as they would have been if made detachable.
• The MDRV6 ear cushions begin flaking and pealing less than a year after purchase.  They’ve left little black specks in my hair and ears.
• As mentioned, the MDR-V6 headphones seem to favor the mid-range frequencies somewhat, and this can make my ears ring after prolonged listening.

In sum: I thought the   Sony MDRV6 headphones   a fine purchase for the money as well as my particular listening preferences and applications. The MDR-V6 unit lacks only a small number of the features that I like to find in a truly great pair of headphones.  But this does not disqualify them from the truly great stature.  So I would eagerly buy them again if needed.

I’ll add any new information I discover to this post as it comes in, about these earphones.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Other Stereo Headphones Reviews
• Sony MDR-7509 (MDR7509) Headphones Review
• Sony MDR-V500 (MDRV500) Headphones Review

References

• Sony MDR-V6 (MDRV6) Studio Monitor Pro Headphones   review on CNET 

Other Equipment Reviews

• AT&T 922 Speakerphone Telephone Review

Older women typically do not   date   much    younger men   because they wish to avoid the jokes, ridicule, and statements of concern from friends and parents.  But thse “frends” should keep quiet; especially if that older woman is happily in love. 

Indeed, lasting dating relationships are indeed forming between older women and younger men. We hear more today about the exploits of the so-called cougar (the older woman). Relationships in which a large age difference exists (more than five years) are firing up more often these days, and the participants seem quite happy with their lovers. It’s good to see that age discrimination dropping in the dating arena.

Age differences between older women and younger men become less noticeable as the relationship progresses. Many people, especially those who’ve never dated anyone very far from them in terms of the years of age, harbor prejudices about very much older women or ver mucy younger men.

Of older women, the younger men might say:

• That older woman won’t be able to keep up with me.
• That older woman probably way out of shape underneath her clothes.
• I’ll have to take care of this older woman because he’ll get sick with age way before me.

Of younger men, the older women might say:

• That younger man will still act like a kid and want to hang out in bars.
• That younger man will take foolish risks with his health.
• I’ll feel like that younger man’s father more so than his lover.

Another reason people resist the concept of older women dating much younger men, is that the romance could just be a novelty that wears off quickly. But novelty is found in most any love relationship, especially at the start of it and especially with those new to the dating game. So novelty does not seem like it’s exclusive to dating arrangements involving vastly different ages among the partners. Besides, once you dissipate the novelty by dating a few much older or younger lovers, the next relationship like this you find won’t be so exciting due to the age thing. Once you have a little experience, true love rather than novelty will more likely bind you to your sweetie. So while I would not recommend settling down with the first much older or much young lover you find, I’d also say that novelty is a poor excuse for an older woman not to try dating a younger man, and vice versa.

But younger men often find dating older women more comfortable and comforting. Many younger men believe that the older women are not as moved by money, status, and power; quantities which the younger man typically has less of since he’s still young and thus, has not yet established himself as a successful business man or entrepreneur. This is often true of older women, as many of them have already dated (or in many cases, married) the so-called rich man, and found the experience lacking. They’ve dispelled the myths of increased happiness when having lots of money long ago. Indeed, older women seem more content living off of their own accrued wealth, than do the younger women. So dating older women may be less threatening for younger men.

Her girlfriends may try to talk the older women out of dating younger men because they’re jealous themselves. These naysayer friends resent the older woman’s ability to get with younger men because they’ve tried all their life to acquire the very things (status, money, and power) to impress such a person, yet that person doesn’t seem to be swayed by these symbols of success. The older woman’s happiness befuddles and confounds her nay saying friends.

Another possibility that those opposed to older women dating younger men is that they have baggage. But in this case, an older person’s baggage may in fact be good wisdom that she’s acquired throughout her longer dating life. Experience has taught her how to better make her love relationships successful. Thus, baggage may be bad in fact, but can often be an asset as well. Again, this is no reason to forego dating a much older or younger person, as baggage impacts most relationships to some degree; even when the lovers are the same age. Being the same age means not that the two have similar experiences. One could have been traumatized or dated lots more in her life than the man. All these things create the potential for negative baggage. The fact that the woman is older does not in any measurable way, mean more negative baggage in her dates with younger men.

Some others, for inexplicable reasons, just don’t like the thought of dating someone far removed from their own age for reasons. That’s prejudice. That’s humbug. If you find an older person that sets your heart on fire, then go for it and date them if they’ll have you. To deny them means that you could be denying yourself the happiness and fulfillment in love that so many of us hope to find these days. So don’t discriminate based solely on age. After all, age is usually just a number.

Examples of older women dating younger men:

• Cameron Diaz (Dating Justin Timberlake with a nine-year difference).
• Demi Moore (in 2001, she was 40, and dating a man who was 25).
• Madonna married a younger man.
• Couple on Opera: Liby is 26 years olde than her lover, Joe.  At the airing, she was 52 and Joe was 26 years of age.

Tom Hesley

Consider the TV ministries; the   PTL Ministries   organization specifically; the one with Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker  at the helm. Now the general church-going population believes that preachers should live modestly, owning only what’s necessary to live and serve the Lord. But  Jim Bakker   and his wife  Tammy Faye Bakker Messner   exceeded this minimal-living expectation by far and brought  folly  not only to themselves, but to PTL Ministries as well. Clearly, based on their obviously conspicuous consumption,  the Bakkers  weren’t fulfilled solely within the confines of upstanding minister practices. Tammy Faye Bakker with her lavish jewels and clothes, and Jim Bakker in his expensive suits and cars so obviously displayed. They worshiped the material trappings of PTL Ministries more than God himself.

While Jim Bakker may have been maximally fulfilled as a preacher, the fact remains that he cheated! He by no means did without.  Many more preachers cheat too, that we don’t hear about.  They lead the public to believe that they’ve risen above the carnal trappings of humanity when in fact they’re secretly indulging in them.  But  Bakker was simply of high enough profile that he eventually could not keep this secret and evade getting caught.

Only the extreme upper crust of the entire sect of preachers could be truly virtuous, achieving maximal fulfillment exclusively through their unselfish and relentless dedication to God and service. But PTL Ministries though they appeared to be one such virtuous outlet, turned out to be anything but. 

Mother Teresa though, was apparently one such person (of a very small few). Certainly, she surpassed   the Bakkers   and maybe even  Christ  himself in this regard. It’s hard to find media reports that diminish her, but very easy to find them against  Christ  as well as   Jim Bakker  and his wife Tammy Faye Bakker Messner.

Word-of-mouth has high data distortion rates as the facts are passed from one person to the next. Thus, the information we have concerning these so-called heroes like Jim Bakker was probably exaggerated, downplayed, and anything else that happens to it when one person relates it to another, who then passes it to another, who then passes it to yet another.  Thus, we probably do not know the whole story on these dubious leaders.  As I understand human propensity, I believe that accounts of   the Bakkers’  lives were likely white-washed, to bolster their effectiveness as spiritual icons, with most of their shortcomings omitted from the record.  Certainly, this occurred with PTL Ministries in its heyday. 

But my, it’s amazing how the mighty have fallen.  Jim Bakker was eventually jailed for accounting fraud and   Tammy Faye Bakker   lived out the rest of her life in virtual disgrace.  This is proof positive that even a most polished-looking preacher such as evangelist  Jim Bakker is little less subject to the temptations afforded power and money, than any of the rest of us.  Preachers aren’t so much better than the rest of us after all, no matter what they or their supporters tell you.

Tom Hesley

References

• Jesus Christ   on Wikipedia
• Jim Bakker   on Wikipedia
• Mother Teresa   on Wikipedia
• Tammy Faye Bakker Messner   on Wikipedia

Some people can indeed live as happily as can be without love relationships; if that’s what they truly wish to do. But that’s not the case for most of us, and apparently neither for many   celibate priests   either.  It appears that scores of celibate priests and nuns alike are not completely fulfilled sexually while maintaining their celibacy. Consider the years of sexual misconduct in the Catholic Church that is now being uncovered around the country, and who knows what goes on in the convents and parsonages after hours? I think these people are generally less devout than appearances imply. So even the most devout and practiced Christians have trouble   living happily without love.

Not that I’m faulting the celibate priests for failing to live happily without love. After all, I’d expect to see many break their vows (sexual and otherwise) because in making those vows, they’ve pitted themselves squarely against primal human urges by ignoring   Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. While we cannot know for sure if someone is truly happy, their actions provide potent clues as to their state of mind. The actions of celibate priests up to now suggest that they’re wanting sexually and   dangerously lusting for love;   particularly since they seek innocently trusting children for sinful fun in the confessional.

I’d argue that this rampant child abuse stems from neglected level three needs as described in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and suggests that celibate priests do not really live happily without love at all. After so much denying of the basic carnal needs, something’s got to give. And it often does in the form of deviant sexual behaviors by these celibate but human priests, nuns, and clergy.  Ignoring or vilifying our sexual urges, as the Christian faith seems to do, has created predator-like and thus, dangerous and sexually deviant behaviors in the church.  Perhaps it’s not wise to ignore the human need for love and affection therefore, and even more foolhardy to trust that a celibate priest has.

The great spiritual leaders on the whole, were probably less honorable than as portrayed in today’s romanticized books, simply because the temptations of the flesh are just too strong for all but the very few to overcome, without gratifying them. The thirst they produce is quite powerful and so fundamental to human proliferation that it gets incorporated into nearly every well-functioning human. So I’m skeptical of those celibate priests who claim to have never succumbed to the mating instinct, who carry the burdens of such denial, yet who boast that they’re maximally fulfilled and indeed live happily without love. It happens, yes. But truly happy and fulfilled lives without love are extremely rare.

Besides, in the days of the Buddha and Christ, in those times devoid of mass media, keeping secrets was much easier, with far fewer reporters and paparazzi flitting around. Even if one discovered incriminating information, exposing and substantiating it proved challenging. No film, no Internet, no radio, no television, no telephone, no fingerprints, no DNA. Back then, you only had word-of-mouth to inform the masses.  So it was much easier then to hide one’s sexual activities.  It was much easier to fool the public into thinking that you had managed to live happily without love when in fact, you were getting lots of hidden love.

Did you ever wonder why monks and celibate priests spend so much time meditating, praying, and tending to the church? True, there’s much to do and learn for the aspiring virtuous priest. But all these devotional hours also serve to quell the lust for love by keeping the priest from books, movies, and other influences that might inspire more fantasies or leave him more wanting. While he may remain abstinent however, he apparently does not completely banish the lust from his heart.

The priest, as evidenced by how many of them just can’t seem to keep their hands to themselves, cannot be maximally fulfilled with such questions outstanding. As the courageous man contends effectively with fear, so too does the esteemed priest contend with temptation. It’s the celibate priest’s contention with temptation that makes him great, not his ability to eliminate that temptation, though I would trust very few to fully live up to the ideal of celibacy. Living happily without love is virtually impossible.  So I doubt anyone who claims to be doing it.  The church needs to recognize just how powerful the need for carnal love is, and abolish the vows of celibacy to reduce the danger of child abuse coming upon thos innocent, church-going children.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Can Mindfulness Meditation Therapy Cure Love Lust?
• Church Ignores Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs
• Effects Of Unrequited Love Needs
• Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs
• More Than Just God To Live For
• Only True Love Truly Cures True Love Desire
• We Don’t Live Happily Without Love
• Why Doubt Religious Faith?

References

• Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs   definition on Wikipedia

It takes more than just effort to outperform our parents, though many compliment themselves for their sheer effort and tenacity that they say was solely responsible for their higher success.  Then, they blame those who do not outperform their parents for being too lazy and not putting forth enough effort.  However, while many achieve in life roughly what their parents did, this does not necessarily mean that they’re lazy.  Now it’s clear that in recent generations especially, more children than not manage to achieve higher living standards than did their parents; greater education, more wealth, better health care, safer neighborhoods, more opportunities, and so on.  So an expectation has grown up that anyone who does not outperform his parents by improving upon their lifestyles, is simply lazy and thus, flawed.

Certainly, a willingness to try is needed to outperform our parents. But like the flour in a chocolate cake (which is not the only ingredient necessary for creating a great-tasting cake by the way), voluntary effort is not the only component in the cake of success. We must also consider those inborn and nurtured traits like talent, ambition, aptitude, nutrition, and so many other qualities that impact the amount of effort required to succeed.  What we are born with and born into greatly impacts the amount of effort we must exert subsequently in order to outperform our parents economically and socially.

Thus, we should be careful when judging people stuck in their traditional castes, because they’re likely fighting and succumbing to forces that we can not see. People all-too-quickly dismiss a person’s fatalism or resignation to his current life standard, as a simple unwillingness to pull himself up by his bootstraps and work hard to outperform his parents. True, some types would benefit from some good old fashioned tough love and forced discipline. But others have good reasons for their resignation and “laziness,” such as the profoundly disabled or the neglected.  We could enhance our own compassion for them by remembering that willful sloth (a voluntary choice to be lazy) is but a small part of all the apathy out there. Some people because of how they were raised, are just not cut out to achieve more greatness than their parents did.  The forces that converged upon them in their lives do not allow it.

Finally, why are so many so opposed to acquiescing to more powerful forces than their own wills? I suppose that the succumbing to tradition indeed sounds a lot like God’s followers yielding their destinies to Him and his plan without question. I agree that this superstition is not healthy for a society. A truly enlightened culture would have no need to do it, and I regret that I won’t live long enough to see our society reach a total freedom from religion.  Yet many strong religious believers refuse to acknowledge the deep impact of child rearing in how much a child is able to outperform his parents.  They believe in an unseen God, yet downplay these objectively measurable forces.  Though the existence of God in my view has not been proven, there earthly forces have been.  In fact, these can be just as godly in power and scope, in determining how far we can outperform our parents.

Our challenge as humans is to discern which success limiters out of the complete set of forces, are mere phantoms, which are truly formidable yet beatable, and finally, which ones are simply too strong to overcome at all. A philosopher from antiquity – I don’t remember his name – said, essentially, that we need a healthy supply of   resignation   during life’s journey. Otherwise, we overestimate our capabilities, struggle to achieve excessively lofty goals, and therefore spend too much time disappointed. People need to know when it’s time to give up, and in order to know that, they must realize that, contrary to the moral of that   Little Engine That Could   story, quitting a particular pursuit is very often the best course of action.  For more discussion on this point, please see my   We Cannot Achieve Just Anything We Want   post.

Back to the original discussion about people outperforming their parents: Some folks fail to outperform those from previous generations because of factors beyond their control.  Thus, acrimoniously judging them is certainly not good, as it blames them for that which they cannot have power over, and wrongfully assumes that they can be in charge of things that they really cannot.  The blame in this case is therefore misplaced.  We need to stop this sort of misdirected blaming to improve our abilities at getting along with and accepting each other.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Accepting Limitations
• Are Self-Starters Privileged
• Book Of Job Lesson: Accept Your Plight
• Case For Tradition
• Fighting Fate To Get Rich
• Free Will, Yes, But Determinism Too!
• Hereditary Baggage
• If You Think You Can
• On Our Parents Defining Our Destiny
• Rising Above One’s Raising
• The Bonds Of Manifest Destiny
• We Cannot Achieve Just ANYTHING We Want

Many religion advocates say that I either must believe fully in the   word of God   as portrayed in   The Bible, or I do not believe at all (dichotomous). Not believing at all, the believers consider a mortal sin, such that if I do not believe at all, then I’m condemned to an eternal   Hell’s afterlife. So I must believe fully, without question, in order to reach   Heaven.

My response: But there is a third valid choice too, that rests between believing fully and believing not at all. That is, not knowing for sure either way, or agnosticism for short. Many people worthy of Heaven, good people who make living here on Earth pleasant, remain unconvinced that the word of God in The Bible tells the complete story of the afterlife. Decent people still question, and questioning does not (or at least, should not) make them unworthy to live a nice afterlife in Heaven.

One can seek and study for a lifetime to comprehend the afterlife as the word of God describes it.  Yet he still may remain   ignorant; neither knowing it all nor fully understanding the word. Indeed, the renowned sages say, they do not know, way more often than they boast of their shrewdness. Indeed, part of true wisdom is an ability to recognize or accept our personal limits of knowledge, at least as readily as we realize how much we do know. Indeed, while for some, The Bible brings clarity to their purpose and understanding of the afterlife, for most others, reading it creates more questions and doubt. These questions often persist even after years of Bible study. My impression is that the word of God confuses more than it enlightens, through no fault of its readers. So it’s hard to accept that God would interpret this confusion as sinful enough to bar someone from Heaven forever and condemn them to a Hell’s afterlife.

The word of God may indeed be His gift to humanity; a path if you will that tells us how to reach Heaven. But if one does not see the gift (and it’s fallacious to assume that all who are exposed to it actually get it), then one cannot very well be faulted for not picking up on this gift and understanding the depths of its magnitude. You would not put an important gift for a blind man a hundred yards away, fail to tell him that it’s there, expect him to know that it’s there, and then assume that he’s rejected the gift just because he never retrieved it. Would such a person as this be deserving of your wrath?  I don’t think so.  That would be penalizing the blind man for being blind essentially. So it makes no sense to treat ignorance as a mortal sin, as God would in fact be doing, if was to refuse to consider ignorance as a valid reason for questioning or doubting His word. Simply not knowing the word of God is by no means a flat-out rejection of His word. People have different abilities and backgrounds that make them see things in different ways. Rarely do two people get the same meaning from The Bible. So it’s difficult to build consensus on what precisely the word of God actually means.  Each person (even among the strong believers) gets her own meaning from it.

Choosing to fully believe in The Bible, or to not believe in The Bible at all, are quite different things from simply not making a choice about it either way. It’s best to avoid this sort of all-or-nothing binary thinking (except when dealing with computers of course). There are many more possibilities than just the two discussed above, that agnostics recognize, but that the atheists and strong believers do not.  In addition to The-Bible way and the No way, there’s also the I’m-not-sure  way. Deferring a strong belief because one simply does not have enough information about it to form an imformed opinion, is far less extreme than refuting the belief completely. Thus, do you honestly think that God would condemn the doubting believers with the same wrath as he would those who actively campaign against Him? I doubt that he would; especially if he’s as compassionate as the New Testament documents.

For the purposes of this discussion, let’s say that God indeed provided the way to Heaven via his word.  But his word is quite subject to differing interpretations. So it’s good to recognize that it’s not our place to judge others based on our individual interpretations of this word of God. But it would be an even truer blessing if we also realized that there are many equally-valid ways of interpreting The Bible. Just think of all the fighting we’d spare ourselves.  If we did that, we might also grasp that it’s possible that God, in His infinite wisdom, will know full well on judgment day, that He only granted us humans limited powers of understanding. Further, each person has different powers at that.  Therefore, he might not hold us to account for our ignorance due to these limitations. It seems that we were fashioned to think critically. So why would God short-circuit that gift by insisting that we not view The Bible with critical eyes rather than just blindly accept The Bible’s account? Again, I don’t believe he would. Even the most upstanding people would not necessarily be the most informed on the word of God. Yet, they’re still good people, and worthy of consideration for admittance into Heaven.

So it’s plausible that even the most well-intentioned people of good conscience might not possess the deep level of understanding that would enable them to become deeply devoted to Him via the word of God. Thus, many people are not religious per se. Yet they’re still worthwhile people and worthy of redemption. Afte all, when they see God, if it turns out that God actually reveals himself to them, many would accept him instantly and eternally.  In light of this, God could have a last-minute change-of-heart and in fact, take pity on the doubters and save them too. He’s done it before. So it may turn out that no one is left behind.

Why must we know for sure anyhow whether or not God exists and that the afterlife is as it’s depicted in The Bible? I freely admit my ignorance. In fact, I am content not knowing, because it’s still possible to live a good and fulfillilng life without knnowing for sure about Him.  Indeed, I’d rather not know until the day the Grim Reaper comes to escort me to whatever destination awaits me in the afterlife.  Hopefully, this will not be a Hell’s afterlife.  But I’ll go to my grave, certain that I did everything I could to understand these issues as fully as possible for me. Hopefully, that’s good enough for Hm if he’s out there.

Tom Hesley

References

• Agnosticism   definition on Wikipedia

Sometimes women  play hard to get  to test just how attracted to them a man really is.  If he keeps coming they reason, despite the repeated rejections they dish out, then his feelings must be genuine, deep, and therefore, lasting.  But then, these same women are miffed when, after the relationship blossoms, the fellow frequently ignores their feelings.  Their play-hard-to-get test, rather than proving his undying interest, only showed him to be a bully because these sorts of tests attract men more interested in conquest than true love.  So, the play-hard-to-get test is a lousy indicator of the true depth of a fellow’s attraction. Playing hard to get only attracts men who enjoy “the chase,” and not those interested in finding true love.

In fact, many truly caring guys with deep feelings will back off immediately when rejected, out of respect.  Indeed, how quickly a man takes no for an answer might be a better measure of the depth of his feelings; namely deference and considerateness.  The more quickly he scats, the more sensitive he is.  The longer it takes for him to back off, the less empathic he might be.  So watch out for men who persist, even after being rejected, because this could indicate that he devalues women’s wishes.  This could be right dangerous to ladies who love him.  Thus, typically, the technique of playing hard to get to stoke the flames of passion in the man you desire yields only a disrespectful, callous man who probably won’t stay interested in you should you ever become easy to get.

The better approach for the fellow wondering whether he should press on through her rejections, is to take at face value what she says, and don’t try to read between the lines.  If she says no, she in all likelihood means no, and thus should not be challenged again without clear invitation from her.  To approach her again without a clear green light to do so creates fertile grounds from which needless rejection sprouts.

While there are rare occasions when NO actually means YES, we’re nonetheless happier taking NO to mean what is almost always does:  NO!  This keeps dating simpler, and could very well keep us guys out of jail!  Challenging a woman’s rejection is never a good idea even if you know that she’s just playing hard to get, because women are highly sensitive and easily scared off these days by men who attempt to overly dominate them.  It’s critical therefore to avoid such appearances, and make sure to always treat her face-value wishes as supremely important.  Respect her always; even when she says no.

And ladies?  Please stop playing hard to get.  If you wish to attract a guy, playing hard to get makes you a liar because you’re misleading him about your true feelings.  Your treatment of him becomes fake because you’re making him think that you do not like him as much as you really do.  Then to, would you enjoy a guy treating you with the coldness, lacking punctuality, and carefree regard that those playing hard to get often do?  Come on, now.  This is the basic Golden Rule. You win true love through truth; not the deceptive practice of playing hard to get.  Be honest instead.  If you feel easy, then act easy.

Take care.

Tom Hesley

Other Examples of Deception in Relationships

• Why Men Cheat And Lie

Darwinism and its modern incantation, Evolutionary Psychology, are difficult reading for the blind and otherwise handicapped people. As with the Old Testament in the Bible, so far I find all bad news for the mating-minded disabled fellow in several Evolutionary Psychology texts I’ve read so far.

Further, reading the book,   Survival of the Prettiest   by Nancy Etcoff was largely to blame for the relentless sadness I’ve experienced at times, because it offers little hope for anyone who is neither really pretty, nor really rich, nor extraordinarily enabled. Admittedly,   Survival of the Prettiest   is a well-written work with hundreds of references to supporting studies. That is in fact, probably why I found this book so disheartening. The handicapped are indeed at a severe reproductive disadvantage.  As such, selection pressures steer the attractive ladies away from us. Reading that book while getting many rejections from women on the Internet, I feel now as though my dream is more futile than ever. My own experience seems to bear out precisely what Darwinism predicts. It’s no wonder I was down.  I’m daunted by Darwinism, because I’m vision-impaired.  So I wonder what my chances are if, as Darwinism suggests, women typically only mate with the highest functioning (non disabled) males.

How would Dr. Albert Ellis with all his Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT) knowledge, instruct on how to advance against this seemingly impossible situation, where the blind man must face the realities of Darwinism to find a true love.  Ellis believed that humans could think their way out of more problems than they believe they can.  So the love news for the blind may be not all bad with the right thought processes in place if one has enough knowledge to properly utilize REBT techniques.

One argument that the REBT student might use to persuade the handicapped to keep pressing on in spite of the grave realities of Darwinism, is that that Darwin was quite the accomplished scientist.  That’s true, and his words shall remain preeminent in psychology now and for many generations to come.  But Darwin, in spite of his apparent completeness, still omits some of the story.

For instance, the deeply thinking REBT seeker would realize that Darwinism does not figure compassion into the mating game, because perhaps, sympathy has no healthy role as a criterion in mate selection. Nevertheless, I wonder if it would be possible for a disabled person to appeal to a woman’s kindly side as opposed to her erotic side at first, to get her to lower her barriers of   prejudice   long enough to give him a real chance. Most people resent another’s pity, and quite actively seek to avoid it. This attitude is frequently expressed by the handicapped. But pity can be a potent antidote to prejudice, long enough to open up her eyes so that she sees beyond the handicap in the fellow.

The blind ought to consider asking for ladies’ pity, openly admitting their handicap up front, and briefly relating the mating hardships they’ve encountered previously. They might consider fully acknowledging the woman’s aversion to dating someone understandably poor and lacking in social status like themselves. But they would ask her in spite of all that, to give them a break, and emphasize that they did the best they could, given their difficult-to-manage circumstances.

This would a long shot, yes. But when time is marching on, desperation indeed calls for desperate measures.   To overcome the prejudices of natural selection that social Darwinism explained so well, the handicapped truly need the compassion of attractive women to help them make their dreams of true come true. If the blind could convince the ladies that only through their compassion could they ever truly touch their dreams, maybe the women would not be so brutally rejecting. If the blind could impress on an attractive woman the power she has to brighten their lives for a time, perhaps they’d not so quickly reject when they first observe that the blind man is blind.

As painful as Darwinism-based Evolutionary Psychology is to read, reading it is probably necessary study for the blind man to develop a realistic view of his place in the dating world, and to get him thinking about ways to overcome the implied drawbacks of being blind, and move forward in the business of finding a true love.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Blind Hardships
• Consider Dating A Disabled Person
• More Help for the Blind, Please
• Power Imbalance: Blind Man Dating Sighted Woman
• To A Blind And Sad Job Seeker

References

• Survival of the Prettiest   book information

Sometimes however, people we want to love reject us though they may actually want a date, and they do it for non manipulative reasons besides.  Perhaps they’ve experienced love at first sight for us, but are afraid to get involved with a new lover because they were badly hurt by their last one, and wish not to risk a so-soon repeat of that experience.  Or, maybe they fear how a new relationship, though desirable, will impact their career or home life that they’ve worked for years now to establish.  They may even have children, and though they may like us immensely, they want to move slowly to see if we can be trusted around their young.  In these cases, their resistance may appear at first as rejection.  But it’s not.  It’s more of a cautious yes than a definite no. Learning to recognize situations like this helps us to better manage emotional risks.  Here, asking someone for a date later, who has rejected us may not be so painful. This makes for smart  risk management  as a way to steer clear of traumatizing yet pointless rejection, and reducing the trauma can reduce rejection fears too.

We should be able to sense the difference between definitive, irreversible rejection, and cautions acceptance.  There’s a difference between her saying no because she detests us, and no because she wants to be careful though she likes us very much.  In these cases, it makes sense to subject ourselves to rejection a second, third, or fourth time. Risk management methodology suggests that in these cases, our risk of being hurt again is lower; particularly since she’s communicated that her reason for saying no is not because she finds us disdainful, but of a more practical concern.  Her saying no could in fact have nothing to do with us per se.  So, she may well be worth a risk later.

There are times when it’s smart to keep pressing forward, even when you get “no” early on.  Again, reading her nuances and listening closely to her voice tells the true and whole story.  All of this is valuable input we should use in our risk management strategy as a means of reducing the pains of romantic rejection.  Still though, when she’s unwavering in her denial of our invitation, our best bet is to pack it in and move on to another, as we need not (nor should not) have to coax someone to love us.

While some judicious risking makes sense, the rest is silly, and well-executed risk management in dating demands that we be able to tell the difference.  I’ve found that when it comes to the   fear of rejection,  playing  against  the odds too often gets you hurt in big ways and only exacerbates the fear of rejection. So I encourage more of a play-it-safe approach; one that just as effectively gets the job of ringing out interested ladies done, yet goes more with the odds rather than against them.  Gamble only when the odds favor you.  The rewards can be just as worthwhile, and the pain and damage to the self-esteem when risking more intelligently (good risk management), are greatly reduced.  Thus, our overall confidence level rises, increasing the chances of connecting with women we truly wish for in spite of being afraid of rejection.  Enduring needless love rejection is one handicap that no one can afford in the love quest.

Inspired by audio journal episode:  AJE-2010-05-06-11-12.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• More Rejection Means More Fear, Not Less
• The Positive Sides Of Love Rejection
• Too Much Romantic Rejection Causes Long-Term Harm