A Post Worth Highlighting

I just came across this post by Phoenixism and the vital truth of what he wrote really struck me. In a lot of corners of the Roissyshere, there seems to be an extreme overemphasis on female physical beauty, almost at the expense of all else. While there is token mention of various personality traits that are desirable, there is exceedingly little emphasis on character traits or consistently honorable behavior. While such an emphasis on externals alone does seem to make sense, given the general focus on short-term relationships and the irreligious nature of those whose voices are heard, yet such reductionism is still dangerous to internalize.

Phoenixism's post, entitled, "The Plain Jane and the culture of artificiality," addresses this very issue and raises the question of whether what men think they want is preventing them from finding what they actually seek, relationally. This excerpt from ths post boldly points out the truth:

We men are fond of sanctifying the the gilded image of feminine perfection while failing to live out our own sense of perfection. I see way too many men in this community who are ragingly superficial while acting the part of mindless clowns, which is fine because this gig will work and it will get some guys laid. The problem as I see it is that their own personal offerings do not invoke the quality of female perfection they act entitled to. The woman they desire and not-so-discreetly reward is the flashy temptress who willingly immerses herself in the same social outlets the men do and which affords both the ability to meet on mutually artificial terms. Men seek the brainless, whored out image they have learned from television and the rest of pop culture. Men, playing the feminine role of pretentious attention whore only serve to encourage and proliferate the same behavior in women who are their natural mating demographic.

The dating scene amongst the majority of 20-somethings (extending into their early 30s, as well) seems one that is etched with subdued superficiality and half-hearted standards when in fact the overriding impulse is one of purely physical and visceral pleasure.

There is a strong tendency, especially in those who are seeking new ways of perceiving and approaching relationships, to kow-tow to the current cultural trends and adopt such mindsets, almost uncritically. Given that Game theory places a strong emphasis on appearance, social status, and external communication, it is quite easy to fall into the trap of changing one's ideals, without even realizing that a change has taken place. When a man begins to be acutely status-conscious, he consider the implications of every word, every garment, every public interaction and every woman he dates. While an awareness of the social impact of certain things isn't harmful, it is quite easy to become enslaved to the whims of other peoples' perceptions, instead of adopting a fixed, rational foundation for considering what should be done and said. That is a trap which must be avoided, since much is as stake. As Phoenixism points out in his post, often the superficiality that many men absorb causes them to overlook women who might make much better relationship prospects.

Insights on What Is Actually Taught In Classrooms - Part 2

Continued from Part 1.

Neil Postman summarizes the messages that are taught through the classroom environment as primarily these:
1 - Passive acceptance is a more desirable response than active criticism.
2 - Discovering knowledge is beyond the power of students.
3 - Recall and the collection of unrelated "facts" is the goal of education.
4 - Authority is to be trusted and valued more than independent judgment.
5 - One's own ideas and those of one's classmates are inconsequential.
6 - Feelings are irrelevant in education.
7 - There is always a single, unambiguous Right Answer to a question.
8 - Each subject is unique and distinct

He goes on to provide some examples of how these lessons are played out in adult life.

Take, for example, the message that recall - particularly the recall of random facts - is the highest form of intellectual achievement. This belief explains the enormous popularity of quiz shows, the genuine admiration given by audiences to contestants who in thirty seconds can name the concert halls in which each of Beethoven's symphonies had its first public performance. How else explain the great delight so many take in playing Trivia? Is there a man more prized among men than he who can settle a baseball dispute by identifying without equivocation the winner of the National League RBI title in 1943 (Bill 'Swish' Nicholson.)

Recently we attended a party at which the game Trivia was played. One young man sat sullen and silent through several rounds, perhaps thinking that nothing could be more dull. At some point, the question arose, 'What were the names of the actor and actress who starred in My First Nighter?’ From somewhere deep within him an answer formed, and he quite astonished himself, and everyone else, by blurting it out. (Les Tremaine and Barbara Luddy.) For several moments afterwards, he could not conceal his delight. He was in the fifth grade again, and the question might have been, 'What is the principal river of Uruguay?' He had supplied the answer, and faster than anyone else. And that is good, as every classroom environment he'd ever been in had taught him.

Watch a man - say, a politician - being interviewed on television, and you are observing a demonstration of what both he and his interrogators learned in school: all questions have answers, and it is a good thing to give an answer even if there is none to give, even if you don't understand the question, even if the question contains erroneous assumptions, even if you
are ignorant of the facts required to answer. Have you ever heard a man being interviewed say, 'I don't have the faintest idea', or 'I don't know enough even to guess', or 'I have been asked that question before, but all my answers to it seem to be wrong?' One does not 'blame' men, especially if they are politicians, for providing instant answers to all questions. The public requires that they do, since the public has learned that instant answer giving is the most important sign of an educated man.

What all of us have learned (and how difficult it is to unlearn it) is that it is not important that our utterances satisfy the demands of the question (or of reality), but that they satisfy the demands of the classroom environment. Teacher asks. Student answers. Have you ever heard of a student who replied to a question, 'Does anyone know the answer to that question?' or 'I don't understand what I would have to do in order to find an answer', or 'I have been asked that question before and, frankly, I've never understood what it meant? Such behavior would invariably result in some form of penalty and is, of course, scrupulously avoided, except by 'wise guys'. Thus, students learn not to value it. They get the message. And yet few teachers consciously articulate such a message. It is not part of the 'content' of their instruction. No teacher even said: 'Don't value uncertainty and tentativeness. Don't question questions. Above all, don't think.' The message is
communicated quietly, insidiously, relentlessly and effectively through the structure of the classroom: through the role of the teacher, the role of the student, the rules of their verbal game, the rights that are assigned, the arrangements made for communication, the 'doings' that are praised or censured. In other words, the medium is the message.

Have you ever heard of a student taking notes on the remarks of another student? Probably not. Because the organization of the classroom makes it clear that what students say is not the 'content' of instruction. Therefore, it will not be included on tests. Therefore, they can ignore it.

Have you ever heard of a student indicating an interest in how a textbook writer arrived at his conclusions? Rarely, we would guess. Most students are unaware that textbooks are written by human beings. Besides, the classroom structure does not suggest that the processes of inquiry are of any importance.

Have you ever heard of a student suggesting a more useful definition of something that the teacher has already defined? Or of a student who asked, 'Whose facts are those?' Or of a student who asked, 'What is a fact?' Or of a student who asked, 'Why are we doing this work?'

Now, if you reflect on the fact that most classroom environments are managed so that such questions as those will not be asked, you can become very depressed. Consider, for example, when 'knowledge' comes from. It isn't just there in a book, waiting for someone to come along and 'learn' it. Knowledge is produced in response to questions. And new knowledge results from the asking of new questions; quite often new questions about old questions. Here is the point: once you have learned how to ask questions - relevant and appropriate and substantial questions - you have leaned how to learn and no one can keep you from learning whatever you want or need to know. Let us remind you, for a moment, of the process that characterizes school environments: what students are restricted to (solely and even vengefully) is the process of memorizing (partially and temporarily) somebody else's answers to somebody else's questions. It is staggering to consider the implications of this fact. The most important and intellectual ability man has yet developed - the art and science of asking questions - is not taught in school! Moreover, it is not 'taught' in the most devastating way possible: by arranging the environment so that significant question asking is not valued. It is doubtful if you can think of many schools that include question asking, or methods of inquiry, as part of their curriculum. But even if you knew a hundred that did, there would be little cause for celebration unless the classrooms were arranged, so that students could do question asking; not talk about it, read about it, be told about it. Asking questions is behavior. If you don't do it, you don't learn it. It really is as simple as that.

Not only is Postman highly critical of the current goals and methods of learning, but he goes further by beginning to suggest what the goal of education should be. Rather than the goal of education being to know a large quantity of decontextualized information, the goal of education should be that students should be capable of learning relevant things. The goal isn't to learn stuff, the goal is to learn how to learn and what to learn. In today's classrooms, few people are taught how to learn, and no-one is taught what to learn. This is a major flaw with our present educational paradigm. It is one which requires a remedy.

The necessary means of achieving those two goals cannot possibly be a standardized approach, since every person is different. Individuals differ in their learning styles and they also differ in what they need to know. There can be no single answer to the question, "How does a person learn?" Instead, there are many various answers. Likewise, there can be no single answer to the question, "What does a person need to learn?" What a person needs to know to function well in life diverges greatly from one person to another.

While the educational goals that Neil Postman hints at are somewhat different than those that I view as the main goals of education, yet it remains that his observations are incisive and his perspective is clearly valuable in considering the best methods of education.

Insights on What Is Actually Taught In Classrooms - Part 1

Education is something that matters deeply to me, because what one learns profoundly impacts the way one functions in life. Education is something that matters to individuals and something that matters to society as a whole. Even within the blogosphere, education is something that people are currently contemplating. Not long ago, Dave in Hawaii wrote a blog summarizing some of the key things that are taught in schools, according to John Taylor Gatto.

While my inquiry into the ideal method of education is still far from complete, the insights that Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner offer in their book, Teaching as a Subversive Activity, strike me as profound and novel. Inquiring minds will find these excerpts are excellent food for thought.

"The medium is the message" implies that the invention of a dichotomy between content and method is both naive and dangerous. It implies that the critical content of any learning experience is the method of process through which the learning occurs. Almost any sensible parent knows that, as does any effective top sergeant. It is not what you say to people that counts; it is what you have them do. If most teachers have not yet grasped this idea, it is not for lack of evidence. It may, however, be due to their failure to look in the direction where the evidence can be seen. In order to understand what kinds of behaviors classrooms promote, one must become accustomed to observing what, in fact, students actually do in them. What students do in the classroom is what they learn (as Dewey would say), and what they learn to do is the classroom's message (as McLuhan would say). Now, what is it that students do in the classroom? Well, mostly, they sit and listen to the teacher. Mostly, they are required to believe in authorities, or at least pretend to such belief when they take tests. Mostly, they are required to remember. They are almost never required to make observations, formulate definitions, or perform any intellectual operations that go beyond repeating what someone else says is true. They are rarely encouraged to ask substantive questions, although they are permitted to ask about administrative and technical details. (How long should the paper be? Does spelling count? When is the assignment due?) It is practically unheard of for students to play any role in determining what problems are worth studying or what procedures of inquiry ought to be used. Examine the types of questions teachers ask in classrooms, and you will find that most of them are what might technically be called "convergent questions," but which might be more simply called "Guess what I'm thinking" questions. Here are a few that will sound familiar:

What is a noun?
What were the three causes of the Civil War?
What is the principal river of Uruguay?
What is the definition of a nonrestrictive clause?
What is the real meaning of this poem?
How many sets of chromosomes do human beings have?
Why did Brutus betray Caesar?

So, what students mostly do in class is guess what the teacher wants them to say. Constantly, they must try to supply "The Right Answer." It does not seem to matter if the subject is English of history or science; mostly, students do the same thing. And since it is indisputably (if not publicly) recognized that the ostensible "content" of such courses is rarely remembered beyond the last quiz (in which you are required to remember only 65 percent of what you were told), it is safe to say that just about the only learning that occurs in classrooms is that which is communicated by the structures of the classroom itself. What are these learnings? What are these messages? Here are a few among many, none of which you will ever find officially listed among the aims of teachers:

-Passive acceptance is a more desirable response to ideas than active criticism.
-Discovering knowledge is beyond the power of students and is, in any case, none of their business.
- Recall is the highest form of intellectual achievement, and the collection of unrelated "facts" is the goal of education.
- The voice of authority is to be trusted and valued more than independent judgment.
- One's own ideas and those of one's classmates are inconsequential.
- Feelings are irrelevant in education.
- There is always a single, unambiguous Right Answer to a question.
- English is not History and History is not Science and Science is not Art and Art is not Music, and Art and Music are minor subjects and English, History and Science major subjects, and a subject is something you "take" and, when you have taken it, you have "had" it, and if you have "had" it, you are immune and need not take it again. (The Vaccination Theory of Education?)

Each of these learnings is expressed in specific behaviors that are on constant display throughout our culture...

Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner present a compelling case that what is taught is school isn't primarily the content that comes to mind when we think of the various subjects that are hypothetically being taught. Instead, the most powerful and enduring lessons that are taught in classrooms are ones concerning structure and method. Personally, I find it no coincidence that my own personal experiences with formal education yield similar observations.

Entry-Level Job Options In A Recessed Economy

While it isn't my primary occupation, I run a small life coaching practice. A client came to me seeking guidance concerning finding a job for her son. He's a young fellow who is fairly capable, but isn't especially confident in his abilities and hasn't bothered pursuing any higher education. He's held a couple of short-term jobs, but by choice he has never been employed for more than a couple of months. As such, at this point he desires a job, but isn't quite sure what sort of opportunities are actually available.

In other times, the answer to this would be fairly simple. He could simply find an entry-level position or a retail job in the area and be employed quickly and easily. Of course, with the present state of the economy, that simply isn't an option. Indeed, I have several friends who have been searching for any sort of entry-level work without fruitful results. One friend of mine recently landed a job that pays on a "commission-only" basis. However, since it's a politically-oriented job rather than an economically oriented one, there really is no way to earn any serious money on commission. In practice, his pay is below minimum wage.

Since I have had personal experience with alternative forms of employment and earning money, here are a few ideas for those who wish to be doing something with their lives in the midst of our presently recessed economy.

1 - Merchandising
While it isn't the simplest and easiest job in the world, there is plenty of money to be made with only a modicum of effort, if only you know how to approach it. Unlike many jobs, buying and selling things requires no job applications, no interviews and no commitment. All you have to do is find a way to make a decent amount of profit by buying things at low prices and reselling them at higher prices. The best way to do this is to choose items where your profit margin is greater than $30. Hot electronic items and popular consumer goods are a good bet. Simply scour the internet (eBay, Amazon, Craigslist...etc) for an item that is selling for far less than it's value and resell it at a higher price. I have two friends who consistently make good money doing this. At $30-$40 profit per sale, you can make nearly $28K per year if only you average three transactions per day. With a bit more effort, you can make even more money. All it takes to succeed at merchandising is basic math and good searching skills.

2 - Utilize Social Connections
This is one of the best means of actually getting a job. While submitting job applications and going to interviews is a fairly hit and miss process for entry-level work, having connections can land you a job with much less effort and hassle. If you are part of a community, especially a mixed-group community, there are often many job opportunities available to you that are acquirable simply through social leverage. Last time I was looking for a job, I landed a great part-time job simply because I was aware of opportunities that weren't available to the public. With that job, the resume submission and interview process were mere formalities. I have a long list of friends who acquired jobs through their social circles. Churches are one of the richest sources of non-application job opportunities.

3 - Personal Skill Marketing
While work of this sort isn't necessarily as steady and consistent as the other options mentioned, there is still quite reasonable demand for personal skills of all sorts. Rather than seeking a job, simply assess your own skills and market them in order to supply a steady stream of work. Can you mow a lawn? Start offering yardwork services. Are you good at house cleaning? Start a cleaning service. Are you skilled in an academic subject? Offering your tutoring services. Are you great at childcare? Look for nanny jobs in rich areas. There is plenty of money to be made if you simply market the skills you already have. Anything that you land is money in your pocket. There is no need to apply for jobs or go through interviews. Just make a post on Craigslist and/or other specialized websites. Go door-to-door and pass out flyers. I have earned more than a few dollars marketing my skills in various ways, and I know quite a few others who have done the same. A couple of friends have even established businesses this way.

4 - Missionary/Organization/Volunteer Work
This last option isn't a lucrative one. But, that doesn't mean it isn't a highly viable choice. Rather than seeking a means of earning money, there are a good number of options that are adventures in themselves. Plenty of different missionaries, organizations and even families are always looking for people to help them in their endeavors. Often, in exchange for your services, they will provide room and board. Doing something like this gives you an opportunity to step outside of your comfort zone, develop various skillsets, and interact with people who have a different approach to life. Taking advantage of long-term or short-term opportunities is a great way to avoid the job market altogether, while experiencing sides of life that many people never see. These sort of opportunities (especially international ones) also look very good on resumes, which may provides future employment opportunities.

Constructed Desires

Recently, a certain question has surfaced in a number of different ways. It's a perplexing question and not an easy one to answer. In many ways it is a very human question, which relies heavily upon epistemology. In setting up this question, it's important to note a few things. First of all, like it or not, we are all, to a greater or lesser extent, a product of our culture. We do not exist in a vacuum, but receive constant feedback and suggestions from others. Second, we are highly susceptible to suggestion, especially of the pervasive and consistent sort. Given these two things, how can any individual determine which desires of his are natural, and which are artificially constructed?

In the modern world, there exist entire career fields that are devoted to convincing people that they desire certain things. Your life is incomplete without a sleek, new car. Your beauty is seriously lacking unless you have the latest makeup products. You aren't sufficiently cultured unless you've read this book or seen that movie. If only you did this, bought that or lived there you would be happy and content. Of course, it's all a cleverly-contructed lie. But, it works. Because of the constant stream of things we're told, we begin to internalize some of these constructed desires. It's not especially hard to know what you desire. You might think, "I wish I had a different job." Or perhaps its, "I would be happier with a more attractive girlfriend/boyfriend." Maybe it's more innocuous like, "I really want a Pepsi." In most cases, you probably do actually desire whatever you think you desire. But, would you desire whatever it is, if you were simply left to your own devices? Another way to ask it is, it your desire a genuine and natural one, or an artificial and constructed one?

The easiest answer is simply to say that all desires are natural. I want a Pepsi because I actually enjoy it immensely. I want a high-paying job at a good company because that would actually satisfy me. I want to wear nice clothes because I enjoy dressing well. But, this answer can't be quite right. After all, both individual tastes and collective tastes are subjective. What is considered a good job varies from person to person, and even varies in its social status perception from one group to the next. To some, being a Hollywood actor is a very prestigious and desirable job. To others, Hollywood actors, while an understandable part of society, are a bit of a joke; they are viewed as people to be pitied rather than envied. Often our individual preferences conform fairly consistently to the preferences of our various social groups. You avoid certain activities, brands or items because of what your peers would think. You tend towards certain activities, brands or items because they are positively perceived by your peers. Obviously, there are a good many desires that are socially-constructed or socially-modified, rather than being natural.

Contrarily, it is similarly clear that not all desires are socially-constructed. Even when doublethink occurs, there is always some underlying natural desire. Though feminism may teach that women can be quite happy and satisfied in pursuing a career-centric life and eschewing relationships, the innate hard-wired desire of women to raise a family and find meaning through a romantic relationship is something that will inescapably emerge, either when there is still hope or too late. Though relentless advertising may have subconsciously linked thirst with a desire for soft drinks, the underlying thirst is still a natural desire. Though the latest technological fads may seem to promise to be the final gadget you'll need to be happy, a promise which it will not fulfill, the desires for satisfaction and happiness are natural ones. Though many natural desires are diverted or distorted, they still exist on some level and, in their purest form, are completely valid.

It is quite evident that, for the modern person, their desires are a convoluted mixture of natural and artificial desires. The artificial desires almost always promise more than they can deliver. This perpetuates an endless chain of striving, while the dangling lure of satisfaction always remains just barely out of reach. They are deceitful desires. Yet, because of social indoctrination and exposure to the ceaseless barrage of lies, we either falsely hope that the next thing will deliver the satisfaction we seek, or we despair in believing that there is no satisfaction to be found. Blind pursuit or hopeless resignation are not the answer. If there is to be freedom and contentment it must come from cutting through the lies and clinging to the truth. That is no easy task, but it is a necessary discipline if we wish to have contentment and happiness.

In order to be free from the culturally-contructed discontent that permeates our minds, we must be able to separate our natural desires from our artificial ones. We must deny the false belief that having newer or better things, people or circumstances in our lives will bring contentment. Contentment is found only in a consistently practiced attitude of gratitude and in the spiritual discipline of resisting the impulse towards self-gratification. Only once we intentionally climb down off the hedonic treadmill and stopping concerning ourselves with social acclaim and approval will it be possible to be content. It's not an easy task, but it is the only way to be freed from the overwhelming drive towards the next thing that promises meaning and satisfaction. A prettier girl, a new hobby, a bigger house or more vacation hours won't really bring the happiness they promise. Contentment will. But it's a discipline, and quite a challenging one at that. It's one that I struggle with daily.

Contract Quoting - The "Fickle" Fee

One of the advantages of intentionally working part-time is the added flexibility gained by having several extra hours every week. Occasionally, I will use that spare time to do a little bit of contract work for various companies. I enjoy independent contract work because it pays very well and it gives me a bit of work variety. Since my job skills are more than sufficient to meet any task I undertake, there are really only two challenges that I continually confront in taking on contract jobs. The first challenge is establishing excellent rapport with my clients and establishing a solid reputation in the eyes of potential clients. The second challenge is accurately quoting the tasks I undertake, so that I can maximize both value provided to the client and monetary profit.

The first challenge usually isn't too difficult. The second one, however, requires a delicate balance. Ideally, my rates should properly correspond to the task at hand. When I properly evaluate a task, I earn nearly exactly my target rate, while still leaving a little margin for additional customization, if desired by my client. If I underestimate a task, then the client receives no additional value, but my profitability begins to sink. Since my tasks vary a fair bit, it can be challenging to accurately estimate the amount of work it will take to perform the given assignment. Just today, I was struck by a realization that will greatly simplify my quoting process.

Generally, when I perform a task for a male client, the desired result is clearly understood by the client and easily communicated to me with a minimal amount of clarification and dialogue. Most men know exactly what they are looking for and can quickly describe exactly how they want it. However, as I was working on a task for a female client, I discovered that even with work-related tasks and projects, women can be quite capricious in their desires. The project that initially consisted of a request for one custom database query soon expanded into a request for two separate queries. Once both had been finished, she added several new criteria and field format requirements which had never been part of the initial request, nor part of the revised request. If I were billing on a hourly rate, this would be of no concern, but given the fixed price of the project contract, every new addition cut into my profitability.

Based on this experience, and my knowledge of human nature, I have decided to factor something else into my quoting process. From now on, I will now add a "fickle" fee to my contracts. I will take my base estimate and add a 30-50% markup, as a fickle fee, based on the following criteria. If the client is female, the fickle fee automatically applies unless she has consistently demonstrated a pronouced level of decisiveness and clarity of communication. If the client is male, the fickle fee is automatically waived unless he has demonstrated an inability to be decisive or to clearly communicate his requirements. By assuming that female clients will generally be capricious, and by generally assuming that male clients will be clear and direct, my quoting process should much more accurately match the amount of work I actually have to perform. It's by no coincidence that my work experience matches the truths Game teaches about the female nature.

By charging a fickle fee, I won't be as quickly frustrated by those whose desires and needs change quickly and without warning. That will result in a great synergy with my other contracting challenge: establishing and maintaining excellent rapport with my clients. It's hard to always respond well to people who make your work more challenging and complicated. By expecting women to be fickle, even at managerial and directorial levels, I will reduce my stress, increase my profitability and increase the accuracy of my quoting.

Electric Guitar Experience

A couple of weeks ago I was asked to play bass at a church in Oakland, since the regular bass player was out of town. Since playing bass is one of my favorite things to do, I happily agreed. After the service, the worship leader asked me if I played any other instruments. A week later, he called me up to see if I wanted to play electric guitar during their morning service. Although I have played bass and acoustic guitar in public settings more times than I can count, I've never played electric guitar in any sort of live performance. My sense of adventure and natural enjoyment of challenges drove me to quickly volunteer.

There were a couple of challenges that I immediately knew I had to face. First of all, while most instruments roles and stylistic choices are fairly simple, electric guitar is a different sort of beast. When you're playing bass, no matter what sort of music you are playing, you have to focus on harmonic grounding and groove definition. The bass notes serves as clear cues to the listener of where the music is, harmonically, and where it is going. The interplay with the drums and the rhythms you use serve to clearly define the groove and provide a foundation for the rest of the band. Likewise, with acoustic guitar, simple strummed chords is all you need to play. Playing any open-flavored voicing of any chord works like magic. Electric guitar is different because of several things. First of all, since it a low-mid range instrument with potential to play some upper register notes, the very harmonic range gives it more prominence than other instruments. Secondly, the amplified nature of electric guitars gives it the most potential for prominence based on volume. Third, the vast array of effects that can used to process the sound and the ubiquitous use of effects leads listeners to expect not simply interesting playing but also interesting sorts of sounds. Because of these three factors, the electric guitar has more natural prominence, role flexibility and stylistic options than any other common instrument.

Now, in this particular instance, I wasn't sure what sort of stylistic trappings the worship leader would want. Would the guitar play a prominent role, or would it be a more subtle mixing? Should my playing lean more towards a modern rock flavor with plenty of distortion, or should I keep it clean and mellow? Should I focus on simple chords, or focus on writing and playing interesting lead parts that add more interest and depth to the music? In addition to the uncertainty I had regarding my particular role for this performance, I also didn't have a chance to seriously look at the charts themselves or practice them until late on Saturday night--just hours before the worship service.

In preparation for the gig, I knew that the most important thing I could do was set up all my tones and effects so that I could easily switch between them. I spent about an hour tinkering with four different sounds, tweaking them until they sounded good, and adjusting the volume levels so that I wouldn't have to worry about suddenly being too loud or too soft. I figured that I would use a nice, warm, clean guitar tone with a touch of reverb for my main bread and butter tone. A fatter tone with a bit of chorus and delay would sound pretty for some mellow leads. For my third one, I crafted a tone with a bit of crunch that would work well if I needed to rock out a bit. Lastly, I decided to prepare a harmonically rich lead tone, overdriven sufficiently in case I needed to play a solo.

When Sunday morning came, I was feeling pretty tired, so I juiced up with a nice cup of black coffee. During practice I wasn't quite feeling the magic. We played this weird version of Blessed Assurance in 4/4 (the original hymn is in 3/4, and that's what I've played in the past), and it kept throwing me off. After a few songs of practice and a few suggestions from the worship leader, I finally had a clear idea of what he was looking for stylistically. Since there were 6 people in the band and lots of backing vocals, he wanted most of the instruments to be fairly subtle and only stand out occasionally. For our offertory song, we rocked out a little more with an uplifting number called, "Can't Bring Me Down." The original recording had a really fun organ lick that I liked, and since we had no keyboard player in the band, I decided to play the lead lick on my guitar. It sounded really awesome, and the band leader really liked it!

The worship time itself was by far my favorite part of the day! Having worked out all the kinks during practice, I was feeling ready, excited and confident. All of the songs sounded really great! I especially loved the beautiful melodies that Eric played on viola. It's not everyday that you have classical string instruments used for worship. The use of strings adds a rich emotional dimensions that other instruments just can't convey. And of course, my favorite song to play was "Can't Bring Me Down." It's always fun to rock out more, and the song has such a jubilant, joyful spirit that I couldn't help but rejoice! Besides, as a musician, solos are almost always my favorite part of performing a song. For a first time playing electric guitar live, it was a highly encouraging experience! I can't wait to do it again in the near future!

Out of the Comfort Zone: Meeting Strangers

The world is full of fascinating people! Yet, sometimes we are so caught up with our own activities or afraid of talking to strangers that we miss numerous connections and opportunities. Learning to step out of one's comfort zone and strike up conversations with strangers is a great way to improve your social skills, grow as a person and discover more about our intriguing world. I want to offer you a new paradigm, which will bring greater joy and freedom!

Understandably, there is naturally a little uncertainty or nervousness about talking to someone new. You don't know what sort of person they are, what interests them, or nearly anything else about them. What if they are really weird and unusual? What if they are mean or mind-numbingly boring? Such questions stem from fear-based thinking and are based on false assumptions about people. The truth is, most people are quite normal and typically strangers are friendlier than you would expect. I know this from experience.

Nearly every time I'm out in public, I end up meeting someone new or talking to someone that I have never seen before. This afternoon, when I was at Starbucks, I met a fascinating, articulate, intelligent young man who is very passionate about exposing the lies that are propagated by the American government and mass media. We had an in-depth discussion about the state of our nation and how many mainstream ideas are harmful and untrue. I met him completely by coincidence. He was reading a book, and I simply asked him a question about it. That single question launched a scintillating discussion for over an hour.

This sort of thing is hardly a rare occurrence. I regularly meet new and interesting people. Part of this stems from my attitude towards strangers. I view every stranger as simply a friend that I haven't yet met. Because I view most people as naturally friendly, interesting and talkative, I have no troubles striking up conversations about any number of topics. Secondly, I not only view other people as fascinating and sociable, but I also know that I am an interesting person to talk to and therefore assume that most people would quite enjoy talking to me, given the chance. Since talking to a stranger is a mutually enjoyable and beneficial event, it becomes rather easy to meet new people.

Sometimes a person feels timidity about beginning a conversation, and the possibility of rejection. However, rejection is a very harmless worst-case scenario. Even if someone doesn't want to talk to you, you have lost nothing. You didn't know them before, and you don't know them now. No big deal! Yet, the potential gain is limitless! You never know if the next person you meet may be your future spouse, your new best friend or a profitable business client. Once you recognize that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, most of the fear and timidity related to talking to strangers goes away.

Besides having a paradigm that views meeting strangers as a positive experience, I also take action to initiate conversations. Last week I was hanging out at Starbucks in the evening and I noticed a couple of girls playing Scrabble. Since Scrabble is one of my favorite board games, I came to see how their game was progressing and what amazing words they had used. After that I sat down by myself to work on an essay I was writing, but soon I noticed that they had finished their first round of Scrabble and were about to play again. I asked them if I could join them and they were happy to have another player. We had a really fun time playing Scrabble and chatting about life, school and the joys of summer.

These are just a couple everyday experiences that I have in meeting strangers. I am always meeting new and exciting people! If you adopt a similar mindset and take action to strike up conversations, you will quickly find more people to date, more amazing friends to hang out with and more exciting opportunities arising.

One-Week Challenge:
Strike up a conversation with at least one person you've never talked to before every day for one week. The conversation can be as short as a simple question-and-answer or as long as you wish.