Untitled

frank you are absolutely hilarious

I feel like you’re saying this as a compliment, but it’s actually meant in a slightly mocking way

oh, frank, you know me so well. and we haven’t even had dessert yet ;)

I was being slightly sarcastic and then I thought of the exact right pun and then my mouth was too full of chocolate chip cookies

But it’s YOUR name

Well, Frank is my full legal name. And I am Frank. And I think it might be fun to have an alias.

What would your alias be

I am open to suggestions for one. (Including, of course, my own actual name.)

i don’t think you can use your actual name as an alias

Fair enough, I think I will go with “Frank,” but feel free to tell me other possibilities

I have heard that you are requesting possibilities for aliases. I have heard your full legal name is Frank. I will now call you Love. That is your new alias.

This is kinda Terrifying Frank !!!

That makes perfect sense. These are all true for me, too. For years I thought they were just how dreams were supposed to be.

I used to have a dream where physics appeared to only be constant when I was in a calm state. If I felt confident, I could bend them in my favor. If I felt afraid, angry, or helpless, even walking wouldn’t work. The air would provide so much friction I couldn’t move. When I did the ground had no friction at all so I didn’t go anywhere. I much prefer the dragon. I like dragons. The trying to talk with no sound coming out I traced to occurring when I was so over-tired that my sleep cycles would disturb themselves, or when I was feeling emotionally or physically unsafe where I was sleeping. So, if something happened in the dream that prompted me to speak I would try, but it was like my brain was also informing me that - at the time - I was not actually making sound. Sometimes it was a nightmare, other times waking up was. Again, I prefer the dragon. They always look so interestingly gorgeous. 

Wait - this helped me realize that I actually want to do the stuff, somehow. Thanks Frankie! <3

That’s clearly just an ass.

Last night’s dream was about going on a date with my ex-boyfriend (IRL), but we kept getting interrupted by my friend whose family used to go to a cult but was very skeptical about cults and about the ex-boyfriend.

It’s all occult now. We’re all occult now. The last thing we learn is who we are. First we learn who others are, and how we should disagree with them. Then, for some of us, we find out that we are in fact manic pixie dream girls. The perspective that the possibly personified sensor here, being the friend, might suggest that the part of you that wants to date your ex doesn’t feel great about the idea and the other part might see that as some obvious self-deprecating contradiction of your ego’s values. as the friend who probably disliked their family going to a cult also is skeptical of you going on a date with your ex. So it would appear: You want to date your ex. You do not want to date your ex. This is something you wish to not address consciously. This is something that may unconsciously be desired to be thought about consciously. So in short, the dream at large might be suggesting: Why not? Why not address it?  Do you like some things about your ex? Do you not like some things about your ex? Does it say something about you, or does that say something about him, or both? In any and every way, you’ll always be an amazing person - okay? You write the setting in all of your stories. It’s always your choice, and only you can decide whether said choice is right for you.

In my mind I have a special category of “people who aren’t nostalgebraist” and I am constantly surprised to encounter actual people outside it

surprise!

I am not a “nerd”

I’m not a “pompous intellectual”

I’m not a “highbrow snob”

I’m a “manic pixie dream girl”

Shhh... You had me at “I am”. ;p

“Don’t try and be a philosopher,” she advised, “just do whatever feels good.”

“If you let peoples perception of you dictate your behavior you will never grow as a person, but if you leave yourself open to experience - despite what others think, then you will learn and grow.” - Some dumbass character on the television. To become a philosopher, one must think about thinking and why they choose to and how those thoughts come to be - and the consequences of such thoughts. To become an insufferable person that no one will enjoy initiating a conversation with until their life couldn’t get worse, one must think about thinking and why they choose to and how those thoughts come to be - and the consequences of such thoughts. I guess I’m saying I like being an aspiring philosopher, and not a ‘real’ one. If I were a doctor of thinking, not only would people not like me as they do now, they would most likely want to see me suffer unto death. But, that’s because I dislike blind trust in institutions and fear ever being a figure of authority because I believe in humanity’s natural brilliance. Thusly, having faith in the corruptibility of mankind’s evil. I like being in a position were people expect and anticipate my mistakes and failures. Therein, I can safely question things without fear of a large-scale misguidance harming possibly hundreds of thousands of people. But, enough about the FDA, I digress.

This is your daily reminder to not be ashamed of making your life easy for yourself.

Cut your food into small pieces, make the font size 30 on your e book, use straws to drink, get a pen that’s comfortable to hold, take more naps, walk slowly, eat another cookie, buy velcro shoes, re-watch the part you couldn’t understand the first time, write things on your hands so you don’t forget it… whatever you want and/or need

Don’t let anyone tell you how you should be doing things. We don’t need to prove each other anything

I am appalled and disgusted by what you just typed that got recommended to me. I hope that this is more of a reminder to yourself, and wish you the best. AND, please understand my last sentence is not meant to be an attack. I do like things difficult. Comfort is unsettling to me in waking life. Trauma, stress, isolation, mistakes, and failure build tolerance to cognitive dissonance which allows me to continue feeling like I’m growing as a person. Is that per se a mistake? yes. So kindly, fuck you. :3

I do believe it to be true. Contingently, when you fuck around: you find out. Lest of course... you don’t. And, any split second of a memory of a lesson is wiped away and otherwise atomized. It does concern me, the banter of bravado surrounding war, because very few that are sacrificed understand the purpose of their rulers. They are rulers, not representatives, after all.  If I’m to be forced to shower in order to eat, I will not disgrace myself as to hold a bar of soap. I will only know that if I do need soap, I will get it on the other side. 

Now I’m thinking about the time the guy with the most perfect head of hair I’ve ever seen in my entire life started masturbating.

Aren’t we all, Frank? 

It was in a bathroom at some college party I was at and it was really nice. He asked if I wanted to play with his hair and we went into another bathroom to do so. Then he told me to take off my clothes and I took off my clothes and we started having sex.

Danm Frank! That’s a wild story 

I don’t think I have ever been so turned on without actually having sex. So, it was a pretty good head of hair experience, in retrospect.

Uh.. So the sex wasn’t as good as the hair? What do think about “Trichophilia” as a word? I mean, I might have some pretty cool hair myself and always appreciate compliments :3 But, maybe you shouldn’t touch it. No offense. It’s purple when I add more color and the red stays longer and blends with my natural brown to make a rich [old/vivid]burgundy/maroon and when my roots show it’s not, like, a terrible thing. Blue dye doesn’t stay, and the red camouflages well. I like this because I don’t like the idea of damaging my hair too much as it’s so long.  omg, I wonder: What hair would you have for yourself? You seem like a upper shoulder blade length, medium brown, highlights with natural sunkissed color layers kinda girl. Modest, yet striking. Like, “I enjoy the sun, so I bring my laptop outside and think about my fans on tumblr.”. Though, I know I’m wrong here.

Wow. What an eloquent way to say “it is what it is”.

I can assure you, however, it is not a bird, but an ant who sings in the morning.

ok ive never read The Selfish Gene but the selfish gene idea just sounds like a good plain english description of the standard modern synthesis math? I feel like ive heard it described as like, Dawkins' theory, when it seems more likely to me (not having read the book) that he was acting as a popularizer

My understanding of it (the "standard modern synthesis" if you prefer) is that it was just a big, general, "this works for all these different things" kind of claim, which Dawkins wasn't interested in pursuing at all.

To put it in "plain English" terms, it's basically the idea that all genes are "in some sense" selfish. That is, in the genome there are genes which directly affect the life success (in some sense) of the organism, genes that affect the offspring, and so on. Since the organism doesn't always like the effects of the other genes, but the gene itself is selfish, the organism should evolve to get rid of the bad genes by any means necessary. (This is complicated by the fact that there are limits to how much can be done in a given evolutionary timeframe. In many cases, there aren't "enough" resources around for this, so the genes are allowed to remain while the organism tries to make them less problematic. In other cases, a gene is "in trouble" and an organism can just remove it outright instead of trying to get rid of bad results through natural selection.)

This does seem to capture a good part of evolutionary thought at the time and there are a number of mathematical formalisms that work with this concept, including the "selfish gene" idea of Richard Dawkins, just mentioned as an example here. Dawkins wasn't "thinking of" the concept – he was just doing the same thing many people were doing at the time, and in doing so accidentally reinvented a number of formalisms that had already been developed.

I actually heard him discuss it at a talk at a math conference back in 2008 or so, and he just used the phrase "selfish gene" (or similar) as a colloquialism, though he didn't say why or that it was his idea. There's no real connection between the concept of the "selfish gene" and the mathematical models that are derived from it, which seem like a totally separate enterprise that Dawkins just wanted to draw attention to.

The selfish gene idea just seems to me like something that everyone had been working on at the time, though Dawkins didn't do anything particularly novel or interesting about it and I don't think you'll find much of the book he wrote later that is either "selfish" or "gene" in the sense of that formalism.

Did-Does Frank hear? [insert red-herring monologue about thought broadcasting symptoms and other paranoia that objectively have no connection to this post or any possible reality to throw off my NSA agent]

No, but I got enough of it when I had to watch Dawkins for a whole hour.

I hope my tone here suggests I'm not really mad about this in any way. I don't think Dawkins did anything especially novel or interesting and I don't believe that anyone who did any novel or interesting things did so because of or by inspiration from Dawkins. I just think it's interesting that the concept here was invented in the 1950s. And people should read about it.

Dawkins sounds like a boring guy. I’m sorry you had studied him. Your tone is like when my Mom says “I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed.” I will not read about it. I’d rather get into game theory. 

ok ive never read The Selfish Gene but the selfish gene idea just sounds like a good plain english description of the standard modern synthesis math? I feel like ive heard it described as like, Dawkins' theory, when it seems more likely to me (not having read the book) that he was acting as a popularizer

My understanding of it (the "standard modern synthesis" if you prefer) is that it was just a big, general, "this works for all these different things" kind of claim, which Dawkins wasn't interested in pursuing at all.

To put it in "plain English" terms, it's basically the idea that all genes are "in some sense" selfish. That is, in the genome there are genes which directly affect the life success (in some sense) of the organism, genes that affect the offspring, and so on. Since the organism doesn't always like the effects of the other genes, but the gene itself is selfish, the organism should evolve to get rid of the bad genes by any means necessary. (This is complicated by the fact that there are limits to how much can be done in a given evolutionary timeframe. In many cases, there aren't "enough" resources around for this, so the genes are allowed to remain while the organism tries to make them less problematic. In other cases, a gene is "in trouble" and an organism can just remove it outright instead of trying to get rid of bad results through natural selection.)

This does seem to capture a good part of evolutionary thought at the time and there are a number of mathematical formalisms that work with this concept, including the "selfish gene" idea of Richard Dawkins, just mentioned as an example here. Dawkins wasn't "thinking of" the concept – he was just doing the same thing many people were doing at the time, and in doing so accidentally reinvented a number of formalisms that had already been developed.

I actually heard him discuss it at a talk at a math conference back in 2008 or so, and he just used the phrase "selfish gene" (or similar) as a colloquialism, though he didn't say why or that it was his idea. There's no real connection between the concept of the "selfish gene" and the mathematical models that are derived from it, which seem like a totally separate enterprise that Dawkins just wanted to draw attention to.

The selfish gene idea just seems to me like something that everyone had been working on at the time, though Dawkins didn't do anything particularly novel or interesting about it and I don't think you'll find much of the book he wrote later that is either "selfish" or "gene" in the sense of that formalism.

Did-Does Frank hear? [insert red-herring monologue about thought broadcasting symptoms and other paranoia that objectively have no connection to this post or any possible reality to throw off my NSA agent]