House Money

I was at the casino area with my folks today, and I noticed that most of the shops in the area were selling rather high end goods. Everything seemed to be something branded, and costing quite a bit even for basic clothing. At first glance, I thought, ok this is a rich peoples' area and catered to that. Makes sense, only that I wonder why I don't see a similar layout near the glitziest hotels in the vicinity. Just how are these stores paying their rent?

After some thought, I realized that the answer probably lay in the house money effect. True, gamblers near casinos can be high rollers and have the liquidity to purchase a $500 dress at a whim. However, not every gambler is a whale, and surely those coming to visit aren't all rich. That's when I realized that they didn't have to be rich in the net worth sense, but in the current liquidity sense: If they just had a windfall, the house money effect kicks in and they're more likely to purchase pricey goods that they would've normally avoided. That would help explain how the stores got their sales.

If a fairly middle class gambler happened to get say $10'000 from the poker table, it would seem to be a comparatively small expense to fork out $500 for the branded dress. The house money effect suggests that since the money isn't really regarded as the gambler's own anyway, the expense has minimal emotive impact. Odd, but that's how people work apparently. For me, whenever I receive a lump of money that I didn't earn, I'd simply spend as I usually do and then dump the rest in savings. I just see no logical reason to regard given money as any different from money I earned fair and square.

Bummer

Today is supposed to be the day I had a good time taking photos of birds and land critters at the zoos...for free. Special bday offer and all that rot. Ok let's cut to the chase: It was a bust. Rained all day, and since the places were basically open air, the animals would've been in hiding and not quite within camera's reach.

I wound up having to settle for a pale shadow of that, which was an outing to a new mall my folks hadn't visited just yet. I really hate it when stuff like this happens, but then again story of my life. Not really had all that many good bdays anyway. They're usually exams, spent being sick, having disappointments like these, whatever. Sometimes I wonder why I bother even trying to have a good time.

Anyway, after pondering what one of my friends said previously about a foiled outing not being ruined because she was out with people...well...no. I still feel majorly bummed out, and the fact that my folks were out there celebrating it with me just didn't help any. If anything, I've always regarded people as sort of furniture in outings, whereby the objective of the outing is key and people just sort of attach themselves to the outing. If people weren't there, the outing would feel just as great. Unfortunately, well...today happened, and I'd be very happy to hit the punching bags extra hard at the gym tomorrow to vent some.

The Autistic Advantage

In our current age of logic and modern technology, it seems to me that the being autistic to some extent is actually a benefit to the individual as opposed to being "neurotypical". In terms of the cognitive vulnerabilities that most people are subjected to (i.e. peer pressure, image issues, social norms, etc), autistic spectrum people are more able to overcome.

I was reading a book on how people use social rules of compliance to "persuade" people to their goals, whatever they may be. While I was reading the examples, I discovered that I'm actually quite resistant to the scenarios stated. The first thing I wondered was why? Why would it be that I can flat say no in a situation where others would feel compelled to say yes? The answer seems to lie in how I perceive people in general, which tends to be in logical terms rather than emotive. I do not think so much in terms of dude did me a favor, and therefore I am obligated (in a generalized emotive sense). It's more like dude did me a favor worth $10 or have it classified as a major intangible favor, and therefore I will return something of equal value at some future date.

The thought process helps shield me from the obligation trap, because I would know if I'm facing unfair demands when calling in a favor, and I would turn them down. Or for example worrying about social pressures (image management) when maintaining appearance of consistency in my conduct. The fact that I largely regard people as furniture helps some, because I will know for myself whether I am being internally consistent and am less affected by the thought of how others will perceive me if I happen to perform an action contrary to the image I am trying to project.

This is not to say that I am a complete social idiot and blow things up all the time because I piss on social norms (actually...that probably does happen a lot without my realizing) but that I wind up being less bound by them and become somewhat resistant to the sort of social-based coercion that would work pretty darned well on other better adjusted individuals. I believe in this case, the autistic advantage lies in the fact that being less socially integrated lets one stop and think over in logical terms what's going on out there, and acting in a more calculating way rather than having a knee jerk reaction that has become so natural to the average person that they are unable to perceive what they just did.

Immortals

The time now is 3.11am. I just came back from watching something that tried to pass itself off as a movie. First thing about the movie: It's supposed to be loosely based on Greek mythology, with an emphasis on the loose bit. My take is: Where is the Greek in all of this?!

Ok let's start with the good bit, 'coz that's really the only saving grace of the movie so far: Over the top fight scenes with plenty of gore. There. I've said it. Ok and maybe some cute girl butt. That's about it.

Moving on, the movie somehow manages to completely mangle Greek infantry tactics, mythology, aesthetics and politics in a single fell swoop, proceeding to wrap all that crap in a shallow narrative so fraught with plot holes, inconsistencies and improbabilities that they might as well toss out the entire Greek mythological premise and make a completely new fantasy much like what they had in Suckerpunch. Notice that I wrote that bit in a single sentence (and Suckerpunch was waaayyy better, btw). Oh, and they managed to throw third rate CGI into the mix, which really is quite reminiscent of 80's blue screen.

Right, I suppose it would be pretty obvious to the reader that I'm ranting at this point, but I stand by my evaluation of this excreable filth. Let it be said that I have experienced this pain, so that you shall not have to. I'd give it 3/10, if only for the blood, violence and a rather fine bit of girly ass. Take my word for it: Don't watch this movie. That is all.

Adventures Of Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn

Here's a fan movie if I've ever seen one. That is, this Tintin flick just so happens to be precisely what Tintin narratives are typically about, and can be reasonably expected to appeal to fans of the series. For everyone else...well...it depends.

Now, the whole idea is that Tintin stories are largely kid stories, with really predictable storylines. Tintin discovers something that mysterious people seem to want really badly, so he decides to take it upon himself to discover more about them. He gets into a great big life-threatening adventure, and really never seems to write about it, come to think of it. But hey, I like it all the same. Not quite so the people who watched it with me, however. The philistines just haven't had the chance to read the comics in the first place. Bah.

Anyway, there's really little I can say about the flick, seeing as how with Tintin writing just about anything about the story would count as a spoiler. I did like the animations, and the typical cartoon physics involved, along with a rather fine rendition of Cap'n Haddock...even though it seems Snowy was the star of the show for some of my dudes.

Overall I'd say the movie's good for Tintin fans, and it's probably something along the lines of 7/10. Good, but not great.

Oh, and I wrote this at...1.

Drive

Once in a while, I watch a movie that contrasts with itself. I'm not talking about a movie that has some serious unexpected twists, but more of a movie that takes on a totally different tone as it goes along. Drive is one such movie.

Now, it is something that starts off sedate and lovey dovey, involving a professional getaway driver. The intro alone should reassure you as to the driver's prowess. As the movie progresses, it is clear that darker, more violent elements are coming into the picture. It's always the gangsters, and they're always killing people in especially bloody ways. Well I am biased here, so when there's exquisite violence for show on the big screen, and that violence proves to be largely anatomically correct, I become quite happy.

Overall I'd say that Drive has captured the essence of an ultracool getaway driver who gets into some seriously hot soup, and I really liked the violence as the show progressed. Unfortunately, the lovey dovey scenes that formed the bulk of the first half felt a wee bit too drawn out. Really, it suffices to show a few scenes to demonstrate how close the couple is. For that, I'd say the movie's worth maybe 7.5/10. Simply put, its upgrade from the gratuitous bloodshed was easily overridden by the gratuitous use of love scenes.

Individuality

Individuality is something that I cherish and regard as highly important in any person. Yet, the concept of individuality is quite often interpreted significantly differently by different folk, so perhaps it is important that I define it for myself. I regard individuality as the ability and inclination to think and act for oneself.

What sparked this thought thread is the idea of individualistic people. That is, people who are inclined to not follow the crowd, and be themselves. Some express this through dressing oddly (or otherwise differently) while others act differently. My question here is: Is this indeed individuality? Can one be an individual simply by dressing or acting differently? In my opinion, that answer is no. It is insufficient.

If one decides to dress in the manner of a subculture, like say for instance the goth subculture, one isn't necessarily being an individual. While rebelling against the mainstream by simply adopting the ways of a subculture, one isn't necessarily thinking or acting for oneself. It's simply a facade one puts on just to seem like an individual. One can undoubtedly choose to subscribe to a subculture for personal reasons, and that's perfectly fine. However, one can also appear perfectly average yet maintain individuality through being willing to think for oneself and act the part.

An example of this is say following a subculture's dress sense. It is one thing to do so, but it is entirely another if one's doing that without understanding the origins of that subculture or making any effort to inject one's own preferences into the gig. I strongly believe each person is an individual subculture, population one. It is not a matter of aping something else just to feel like one's a part of something, but more like going in as a participant, and then budding off as a wholly realized person. Such is the journey of discovery of life.

Public Energies

Today, I was discussing the matter of peoples' energies. That is, the concept that when people are constrained/repressed, their energies will wind up diverted and may end up being quite destructive. Which caused me to wonder at how the Japanese do it, somehow managing to maintain a fairly creative environment even despite massive social constraints. It seems quite unlikely that such an environment could've arisen, and though I am no expert in Japanese culture, I have seen numerous creative works coming from Japan...and they seem to reflect a thought process that is quite alien to my own.

In contrast, similarly repressed societies elsewhere just tend to breed a certain sort of ill society, whereby people cease to care for one another. They simply become destructive instead. It puzzles me how such similar environments can result in such significantly different outcomes. The key here seems to be culture. That is, a culture that is more open to doing things in unusual ways.

Where Japan may well be quite straitlaced, they seem to be quite tolerant of experimentation when it comes to the youth, and they have a rather clean separation between the imaginative space and the socially proper space. This seems to have created a magic circle where people are free to explore and express themselves, without violating the equally stringent social mores that afflict repressed societies. This seems to be absent in the ones that turn destructive, whereby there is indeed no safe space at all, and the only outlet for these pent up public energies seems to be deviance. That is, rough behavior, anger and other destructive tendencies.

Perhaps it may be a good idea to delineate clear boundaries of what is safe (such as in kabuki theater) and what is socially proper (as is typical in strait laced societies) to provide safe channels for creative energies, such that they benefit the society as a whole while maintaining social order.