What is generation "I"? (page 1)

                                             What is my discussion on Generation "I" about?

   (part 1) Have you ever found online articles that showed that narcissism is on the rise? Have you found out about articles that tell loneliness was on the rise? Do you know about generation Y? Assuming that the reader has already read google news articles that explain the nature of loneliness or narcissism, perhaps even at different parts of the world, I wanted to reveal that I believed that I had developed a much more broad view of our culture (ours in particular) when I found out about a small article online that told about some of the influence of the principle of individualism. I will discuss more of that concept later.

   Generation "I" is synonymous to "Generation me". It can be found in articles using key words on google news using key words such as in: "generation me", "millennials narcissistic", "generation Y narcissism", "The me me me generation". So the question arises, and also you should know that I will reveal how it is answered: why does generation "I" appeal to the reader? Generation "I" relates to narcissism but, also in my writing, I also show how the negative influence of narcissism, in combination with other things, can contribute to the phenomenon of this pervasive loneliness in our culture. If you didn't know already, loneliness overlaps with the cases of being diagnosed with Depression. (The effects of depression is not the investigation here since this subject in this writing is on a much more grand scale.). With this in mind, when I wrote this material, it was assuming that the reader already read about this millennial generation. Perhaps also it would get the reader curious to find out more on this subject if they didn't already know since it was based on what you can find out through using key words on some online search engine, anyways.

   Of course, based on that knowledge, it is now known that I did not develop the ideas on my own for my discussion of generation "I". However, what is important about this discussion that I made here, though, is that I believe it was more significant than going about things that is not much of an intellectual grasp as in to simply collect some articles, skim read it, and then think I am done. I, personally, just like to skim read stuff unless that I intuit some discussion about it. For me, grasping this subject seemed to appeal to me on a practical level.

   If you start to wonder about either the impact of this generation from here on or the impact of technology and economics on the public further in time (etc.), you may find this subject to be a much more moral or political issue for you then in contrast to, perhaps, (something like) it could be just within a more remote area of your mind as in just being "understanding something". If you do not care much for this subject because you are always convinced that you deal with your life in the "here and now" and that you even have a different perspective than this cynical one than that's fine as well. However, in contrast to that, I know how I am affected by this (ideological) phenomenon. I know how it can affect other people. I cannot deny that this discussion is a step to something that bears fruit within a much more practical level. I know it does since I know that it overlaps with the development of beliefs and values which is a kind of conversation that is seriously lacking in our culture today.

   Forming harmonious connections with people may start with sharing (or demonstrating) our beliefs and values (as long as they are in agreement with another). For an example, I have observed,first-hand, of the American ideas about intimacy: how its advertised and how it is done. There is an individualistic way that it can be done which is interconnected to the ideas involved with individualism: (speed dating or monogamy to fill in the void). In contrast to that, there is more of the platonic way that I believe can be accomplished. That's what I have been in favor for up to this point (and perhaps I will keep that sentiment). So what are meaningful connections in the platonic sense? Personally, I have not read any of the philosophy written by Plato who had wrote that discussion. However, I do believe that I understand that, on a fundamental level, it contrasts with the kind that appeals the most to human emotions (This would be romantic emotions) - as a conclusion, since everyone is human and then (keep in mind that that this applies to nearly everyone) human qualities are quintessential with the quality of emotionality and sexuality, perhaps its easy to apprehend why romance is so popular to people. (If you know how to research this stuff effectively, you will find out about the tragic effects of advertising excessive grandeur when it manifests itself in (one of the most tempting things) that seems to be normal to most people: sexuality)

   I'll try to make this generalized statement concise enough: In summary, sometimes our cultures obsessions are fueled by the individualistic pursuits that are interconnected with narcissism and narcissistic tendencies. The reality of our cultures obsessions with the idealized notions of, for example, sexuality and workaholism(also within the educational domain of higher education etc) has lead to: (1.) In regard to workaholism, its the tragic deep-seated foundations to the reliance on study pills (also called "cognitive enhancers" which I wouldn't apply to name these kinds of drugs) in either colleges or application in certain careers. Stimulant drugs such as Adderall and Provigil are now widespread artificial tools of success-motivators because of many factors that I have not mentioned; However, it can be found through the internet that some people realize the senselessness of their use. (2.) In regard to sexuality, in general, there is widespread corruption causing rise in prostitution because of online postings and online escort agencies. There is also a rise in chemsex; I suppose, in peoples attempt to live in this world of individualistic self-interest and narcissism, they end up doing things that seem normal just because that other people are doing it; Even if they do not feel satisfied enough with it, sometimes they keep doing it anyways. (Perhaps this phenomenon can be called either "sexual extremism" or "sexual grandeur".)

   So far, in contrast to society putting emphasis on the individualistic pursuit of monogamy or sexual gratification, my stance is to put emphasis on being inspired by the principle of platonic love. (I hope that this is what this writing seems to accomplish in some way (if anything significant)).

   So, perhaps, in regard to the meaning to this discussion, in order to take some steps to solve this problem, seems to relate to finding a way to give these ideas in this writing, which is more comprehensive view of many particular problems, away as an accessible writing of a different worldview. Perhaps it can on its own right because many people know about it regardless but I'm sure it will in regard to the next fundamental realm of civilization other than politics and money: Spirituality. With spirituality in mind, I could continue on with my plans to find out about the abstract principles of religions (not just through my monthly 60page Christian booklets!) and use them for moralism on a social level which is what libertarian ideas are all about. However, if my ideas to do so are inconsistent with my skills and ability to make certain discussions and ideas about things accessible, then I will be discouraged - I wouldn't want to even care anymore about the greater good etc.

   Ultimately, on the optimistic side, there are some pretty good sources of information coming from google news that relate to this subject. I also found out about the sci-fi future forecast television series which relates to our world and its called "black mirror". This program can be found on a Netflix internet television (operated by a digital DVD and blue-ray player). As for in regard to my situation, I will try to find other aspects to life which relates to the complexity of overlapping trends. I suppose that if I focus on the cynical view all the time then the world will simply be too small with its overgeneralized prospects. This would not result in anything worthwhile.

                                                                                     ----- -----
                                                                
                                                             What to hope for (The generation "I" report)

(part 2) At this point I will be going back to the topic of individualism real briefly. I had found an article online through google news that tells about the role that neurotransmitters appear to play within a sample size of population genetics. Its about the ideologies of society and how it interconnects with genetic polymorphisms. Perhaps, in some way, this sounds racist. However, to challenge this particular theory, one must prove how behavior can be manifest even if these genetic differences are shown to be manifest within a certain test. A link between certain genes and behavior is only a link anyways (so its not too offensive). On the other hand, it would seem too biased to me if the report had specified particular genes to be in a connection with certain mental inclinations such as aggression.
 
   Individualistic tendencies and collective tendencies within a society are shown to be dependent on certain neurotransmitter transporter genes: The (s) 5-HTTLPR allele (also called "5-HTTLPR-S") etc. Its also measured by certain hormones. Perhaps key words to help with one to research this on their own would be something like: "Race and stress". Its an established link since peoples inclinations are learned by certain kinds of situations, influenced by neurotransmitters, and linked to other factors. Personally, I'd say that cortisol levels measured after a certain cognitive task may make an interesting study since cortisol is shown to be directly connected to stress. Serotonin receptors and monoamine oxidase, for an example, are only casual links to certain situations that are stressful (such as social ones). They are hypothetical links since that it is if you have not learned that they are tested under empirical derived results. It should also be common sense if one thinks that certain genes and tendencies are widespread not because of "race" but because of how scientists found a link between biological things which is not proved 100% to be widespread through the culture anyways. However, these are neurochemicals that can be used for key words if one wants to know more through an online search engine.

   Studies such as these may perhaps give one a more objective perspective into how things happen in nature. How someone thinks something should happen the way they envision it within their own individual style of thinking is a biased idealism. Because of this study this is an example of what kinds of questions it could vaguely answer: in regard to peoples reactions towards either a certain political system or leader, with regard to ones inquisition into their behavior, we may find out how peoples decision making becomes biased within particular condition that many people are being exposed to. This contrasts with that political scientists and radical social reformists (those whom have always been either persuasive or simply just demanding for more depth in ones forethought of how they predict things within social institutions): Vaguely I know of Thorstien Veblan or Carl Marx whom were social reformists. As a basic conclusion, in this 21st century, perhaps there is now more of yardstick to go by in certain subjects because of the advances in neurosciences. Ultimately, relating to cultural phenomenon, (as a kind of just argument I made about something) we know what something is (as in some political ideology), but, on the other hand, why it is what it is, among in combination with certain people whom speculate what it is, should also be open to speculation among people that inquire into the complexities of the brain.

    The next topic relates to the salience of certain studies. Take heed of the fact that, in my writing for this "generation I" discussion, I have been throwing out the ideas of salience of certain subjects as well as certain ideas which relate to the broad range of societal phenomenon in order to try to give a justification for certain psychological ideals. This also relates to the broad area of giving advice tied to the intricacies of the insight into society. However, there is a hierarchy of vocabulary one can use to discuss something. Salience relates to the practicality of certain ideas. If society had grasped practicality in neuroscience, it would be called a "neuro-revolution". We could, as a consequence, even call our society a "neuro-society". What exactly that would mean, not even I know for sure.
 
  In 2014, this article came out "What Neuro-revolution? The Public Find Brain Science Irrelevant and Anxiety-Provoking". The important piece of writing is copied here - "Cliodhna O’Connor and Helene Joffe at UCL in London have just published in-depth interviews with 48 members of the British public". These studies would prove that, because of that people have never used brain studies to solve any problem etc, neuroscience serves no psychosocial functions for them. I admit that I found that neuroscience in the news has been mostly about medicine or mental illness.

   Another topic is linked to this one. Commonly, youth are exposed to certain mind altering chemicals such as tabacco and alcohol. Sometimes , on the walls of coffee shops etc, youth are deterred from the usage of marijuana (which is also on the rise). Also, there's currently a heroin epidemic going on throughout the nation. Can neuroscience help us know how to escape our ordinary life and problems? On the one hand, neuroscience can frighten people because of the kinds of studies done - As an example, who wants to know the link between the gene variation of a brain protein called "BDNF" in some people and the negative impact it has on forming short term memory, how it influences ADHD, depression, and obesity? On the other hand, the studies done showing variations in how the brain can function under certain conditions, how certain hormones effect the way we feel, psychological studies, and also on how certain activities influence us (our brains connections in particular are being influenced) such as playing certain video games, listening to music, learning a new language, parenting techniques, and taking certain vitamins and supplements may give some good advice. 

   Relevant to our culture and also to the topic that I just explained earlier, I want to reveal another study: certain mouse studies have shown that intense audio-visual stimulation during the first phases of a mousses' life gave out some data (in the study) that suggest that its impact is similar to what goes on when human youth are exposed to a television, as in that, in parallel, may desensitize the brain of a young human when its brain is developing as well as it did to the young mice. This applies to very young children between certain ages: under the age of two.
 
   Its clear to me that when people find applications for studies that relate to the impact of the environment, it meets the standard for a particular ideal. One such study is one of the epigenetic studies by which woman whom were exposed to some kind of trauma had given birth to babies that paralleled the low levels of cortisol found by it by being measured in those mothers by application of a saliva test. This trauma applies to child abuse, poverty, being in the situation of the terror attacks on the twin towers, and Jewish holocaust survivors. Fetuses need normal levels of cortisol in their blood serum since cortisol is essential for normal brain development. Perhaps an application that can come from studies such as these can lead to a kind of neuro-revolution?
 
   Ultimately, whether its ensuring the proper motor development of a babies brain (which, among other things, is dependent on cortisol levels) or limiting video games that have the potential to overstimulate the reward centers of a youngster between the ages of 8 to 12, neuroscience can help limit some of the effects of some of the hostilities of the environment. So, on the one hand, designer babies whom live their lives as though its simulated on a computer appears to be artificial or even "race magnification" because of that its mentally deranged, on the other hand, practical applications of neuroscience can improve the scope of medicine to things that help promote happiness rather than threatening to associate bad outcomes with "bad people" since if one is in favor for unfounded human enhancements.

   During these past few years, there has been a significant spike in the production and commercial activity involved in designer drugs. When I had looked up certain articles on google news that tells about people of many different age groups buying dangerous stimulant designer drugs online, usually the ones made from methamphetamine, and then reading of the effects of these drugs making them suffer from the psychosis that they can elicit, I wondered why people were not engaged in the proper goal setting with education, social life, family life, and leisure activity. Perhaps neuroscience needs to be radically redefined if a neuro-revolution is to occur, though. We cannot treat the brain and the person the same as it would be in some bias made up by education standards, religion, or penal punishment systems.
 
   I found that a study had shown that white people between the ages of 25 and 34 are five times more likely to die from a drug overdose than they were in 1999. Death rates from heart disease in the U.S. have declined nearly 70% since 1969, however, death rates from this health condition have increased significantly over these past few years. Heroin usage in particular has been on the rise as well but, other than this obesity stuff, take heed of that heroin is also a causative agent in one developing heart disease (among other things).

   With all this in mind, what we want to accomplish, learn, and how we want to change depends on how our brains' influence us to make certain decisions. Perhaps it is a psychological study in order to determine how people react towards different things in the environment. However, in contrast to that, it also seems like a neurochemical factor that contributes to our understanding of the world by which most of the study of psychology has never provided any answers anyways.
 
   Ultimately, in order to balance the debate of nature and nurture in our mental inclinations, in order to actually prevent severity of mental illness or a certain amount of neurological decline, and in order to find useful data to stimulate our quest to ask the relevant questions (as in since if we did have that data then (or anyone inquisitive about it) we might have found the data that leads to a certain foundation to our inquisitions), the path to a neuro-society should, favorably, have the salience since such a broad range of phenomenon has a neurological underpinning.

Can it all be solved? (page 5)

We are disconnected:

  (part 1) So far, I've introduced the reader to the impact that certain technology and ideologies have on the mindset of not just this nation but also on the entire world. At this time in history, most people are enticed by the kind of role that technology plays. People are enticed by the fast pace by which technological discoveries are made.

   As an example of this, self-driving cars should hit the market by the year 2018. For their operation, these new cars make use of a few teraflops in computer processing speed. These microprocessors which reach these speeds (usually 80 core processors) have became developed to their full use potential within these past few years - in the years 2007, it was not known about any established important roles that these processors could have when intel developed the first chip for demonstration and research. However, now things have changed completely. Neuromorphic hardware has also been developed within these past few years. One of them simulates how neurons electrically encode information using neural spike signals for input signal and output signal - this device can record neural spikes on an EEG machine, interpreting the data and then output the processed data of neural spikes as a calculated output of the neural circuits. One of the applications which is shown on a youtube channel is that a noninvasive EEG recording of the brain using an electrode cap can be used to control robotic machines such as a robotic arm.

   These advancements are not just part of the rapid pace by which human intelligence can achieve things. Its viewed as a glorified miracle added to the times we live in. People who engineer and research are, ultimately, in control of human fate. Just think of all the atomic weapons and supercomputer applications out there in world. One supercomputer in particular that was engineered in Russia uses artificial intelligence to portray the probability of emerging threats based on past events. The key words to find this computer on google is something like "Russia supercomputer predict war" suggesting the machine can predict a war coming by probability. It was being built to its completion somewhere in the year 2016 when Donald Trump was running for president.

   Now take this one step further. Its not just human fate that is under some kind of control within the realm where science is applied but also science can use the same ideology (well, just take it for granted for now. You know I'm right) to apply to the human form and human mental capacity. Some people feel that we are living in the times where our biological form itself should be upgraded with technology. If you haven't heard of biohacking, I'd advise that you look it up. People that biohack call themselves "grinders"; The new movie coming out that is about this subject is called "biopunk". That's not all, some of these "grinders" want to add "cyborg" as a type of gender on the list of the gender identities(take heed of the fact that there is a lot more than 3 genders already).

   Dave Asprey, an entrepreneur and biohacker, "credits his computer-programming background as a big motivator in finding ways to elevate the "hardware" behind human health". He is the inventor of bulletproof coffee - a blend of coffee by which it is told to consumers that the mycotoxins have been removed from the beans. However, some critics have argued that mycotoxins have already been removed by the coffee bean industry: this removal process is called wet-washing.

  This person claims that he spent aprox 1 million dollars biohacking his body. Ever since he lost about 100 pounds because of his special diet and his special coffee, he wants to share his secret with others. But that's not all, he wants to live until he's 180.

   What do you think? Is this what people are entitled to: to live until the age of 180? Do people desperately need more weight loss miracles? It seems like someday some people may find a black market where some surgeon in that market could implant an engineered fresh new organ without worrying about getting in trouble by some ethical state law. Perhaps the brain itself could be augmented with cybernetic implants so that people can connect their minds to machines or even some kind of artificial intelligent mind. (A 302 digital neuron nematode connectome had been placed inside a robot already, however, its entire scope of behavior is still not completed until real biological processes within those kinds of cells can be simulated. But there's' more: recently, a 3D map of the brain of a fruit fly has been completed and its only a matter of time before its 100,000 neuron connectome will be discovered perhaps so that it can be simulated by supercomputers.)

   Theres' more to think about in regard to the effects that technology has on people: One of the key ones is on the job industries. Job industries create a kind of demography. So, in a big city such as Seattle, a tech industry could increase high paying jobs but now the question is: "for who in particular"? See, its not just about "intellectual giftedness" that gives people the entitlement to earn a large some of money in a particular field - its also the contributing "self-esteem in of itself" by which people think that they belong in a particular industry or have a particular career. Self-esteem can be affected by how they are viewed based on their gender. If the reader isn't familiar with how sexism has an impact on the world, perhaps just try to apprehend how intellectual giftedness creates entitlement in of itself - And just the same in principle as that kind of entitlement, ask yourself "why wouldn't ones gender representation be impacted by a very intricate subject called "giftedness" (particularly in the fields of science and engineering)?". Therefore, since, as they are influenced by outside factors, men play out there role of dominating woman - its how masculinity is defined when they find intimacy through sexual activity. Its not surprising that the tech industry is a popular consumer of the sex industry (meaning as in prostitution; Usually through a website). Quoted from a website: "Seattle has seen a 120 percent increase in its sex economy in the last decade". The tech industry, with its mostly middle and upper class men, are the most frequent consumers of this kind of exploitative service.

   Now for coming up with a basic conclusion about the meaning to all of this (Q&A): (Q - what could this day and age of advanced 21st century technology be about in my writing? A: Its about entitlement. Its about subordination. Its also about oppression.) If that weren't the case, biohackers wouldn't democratize their knowledge through DIY kits. If that weren't' the case, no one would have self-esteem issues with working in a particular tech field(I'm talking about sexism). Everyone wants to get enticed by something (that you're entitled to). If you don't have your entitlement to great sex, money, or perfect health then perhaps, with many other factors, your probably thinking that you've been proved to be useless.

   The poison that we are dealing with here is that there is usually very little to no sense of belonging in our world. When there is a problem, teaching your kids to just reach into the medicine cabinet (for sleeping pills or your Xanax prescription) because its customary to view it as just a chemical imbalance thanks to the explosion in the pharmaceutical industry is the quickest way to deal with those particular kinds of problems - not the most efficient. People are taught that all that they are is just brain activity. People are taught that happiness is when you just feel something pleasurable. This is an oppressive system of customs brought about by the authority of pharmaceutical industries.

   But this was discouraging to me. I was yearning to find out that there was so much more to the human brain than the popular research out there that just showed evidence of some faulty neurochemical activity. In the year 2012, I reviewed some of my google news neuroscience article collection and then finally wrote a kind of integrated insight of facts that I had derived from what I learned. It was 4 pages. However, unfortunately, even though it made me feel encouraged by things and even though it gave out a foundation for asking more questions, I found it to be a little inadequate.

    People ask this question: "Is there any meaningful things that contribute to psychological well-being"? Well, a popular invigorator of the mind (which other people know well) other than psychoactive substances is, of course, sex. Sexual activity provides human interaction (or human exploitation!) and this kind of feels meaningful for the time being - it releases hormones of intimacy (oxytocin) - the strongest emotion which helps people feel more alive - more invigorated. However, the sex industry is uncaring in real life and that I'm pretty sure that repeatedly having sex with someone for money means that you really are not doing well in life!

Defining purpose (How can things possibly be resolved?):

  Before I get started with this subject, I wanted to say "here's a needless confession": This whole writing still needed a meaningful outgrowth to conclude as a constructive goal. There was supposed to be a logical step to follow for a good outgrowth to all of this which may be more clearly predicted at the end. My first pieces of writing came much later in time which I think is absolutely ridiculous - I also concluded, though, that they should of helped much with a logical processes in my writing. As of now, I just couldn't see clearly how the logical flow from any of my pieces of writing could connect to an obvious conclusion. (What kind of writer is a disorganized writer?) Anyways, some of the logical flow of my writing seems to interconnect my enthusiasm for neuroscience by which either the statistical facts or regular studies were continued in an outgrowth for the different pages of my writing.

  As an example, on the "Generation I" page, neuroscience can easily show how technology can cause changes in the brain just as I made a statement of it earlier in the "page 1 (part 2)" referring to a study done on video games. I admitted that studies can show different results which is why neuroscience needs a revolution in order to determine how a better study can be done so that no one disagrees. Perhaps the IBM Watson or some other artificial intelligence can determine a good study.

   One conclusion here to gather from my writing is that there are structures in our brains' - (who knows how exactly how they were influenced to connect to other neural structures in a certain way.) - by which these structures can get influenced by either genes or environment and, also, to some extent, these structures may reveal how an underlying problem manifests itself. This relates to the unknown practicality that neuroscience could have for a future "neuro-society". Another example of regarding brain structures could ask the question: "Have lonely people been exposed to certain phenomenon which had a negative impact on their brains?". However, brain scans are in controversy in the mental health system because of that physical problems can be diagnosed by physical changes in the brain which is about neurology. Psychiatry has an age old problem which brings one into the philosophy of the mind.

   There may be another kind of confusion in my writing as well. As you may infer from reading my writing, it seems like I go off on tangents perhaps because I get enthusiastic trying to put into perspective all kinds of sci/tech developments which I remember from searching through google news. On the one hand, I did seem to interconnect ideas to reveal the influences that technology has on peoples outlook in life. On the other hand, perhaps one would sound like a tech-idolizing nerd if one goes off on those particular subjects in order to put into perspective the significance that certain technology has on our lives - maybe that's just another topic to get confused by unless it really is interconnected with a particular influence on our social lives anyways. I thought that I was giving an example of it through that writing, though. Perhaps this also means that it is an influence on my outlook in life.

                                                                         (Now lets get back on track)
     
  

Loneliness (page 4)

A rise in Loneliness:

   Loneliness is the loss of a social network. When using popular internet search engines to find out about this, they will give results showing that this phenomenon has greatly increased over the years. One recent 2016 study had shown that loneliness creates a kind of "fight or flight" response by which it has revealed to be the indirect casuality (specifically, a physiochemical casuality) of the release of a protein that increases blood clotting which can contribute to a stroke etc. Among so many other things, lack of sleep can also create a stress reaction that is intense enough to keep the sleep deprived person more awake for a certain period of time. Decreased immune function can also happen if enough stress hormones are released. (These bodily states are based on a approx. 24 hour cycle by which the body normally adjusts its metabolic and neurological activity through certain periods of time.)

 Recent research suggest that social networking has, in general, decreased meaningful interactions - a lack of intimate connections. Your probably thinking: "is that all there is?". On the one hand, certain phenomenon related to our culture today should carry some significance. On the other hand, however, there is a much more broader view of phenomenon which dates back to aprox. the 1950's which should relate to many relevant factors which pinpoints approximately how our society has been acclimated to certain worldviews.
                                                                                    (Considering the facts)

-Around 1955, amphetamine and methamphetamines gained popularity. They were utilitarian drugs sold in college campuses. By the 1960's, production of tablets for civilian use was in the billions per year.

-In his book, Dr. Seligman (Martin Seligman) cites data that indicates that the incidence of depression in the US has increased ten-fold since 1960.

                                                                                    (What does this mean?)

  Some of these conditions of the world which I am writing about are the result of peoples natural inclination to some of the ideas inherent in individualism. Individualism could mean to other people and to the reader this: "liberated secularist", equality, free-thinking, and self-autonomy. On the other hand, it may also mean competitive self-interest(a particular phenomenon relating to behavior).

 The significant ideas to gather from this information in regard to the conditions created that lead up to certain phenomenon or that, actually, was also an outgrowth of a particular phenomenon, is that the inherent customs and ideologies of American culture has its interconnection with economics, technology (in this case, I'm referring to the popularization of mind altering substances that are created in laboratories) , and politics.

 I'll reveal again in this material: My intuition tells me that its inaccurate to simply blame social media or smartphones on the conditions that take place in this world - as in this 21st century rise in loneliness. Its more accurate to trace back the outgrowth of phenomenon brought about by technology and politics (revealed, briefly, in the facts I just gave in this material) which approximately dates back to significant manifestations in the 1950's etc. In general, these materializations of certain events - the recorded conditions within a period of time in history should give an indication of how things had progressed throughout the years. Specifically, it should lead us into trying to understand how peoples lives have been affected by American ideological and technological developments throughout a period of time.
 
 Referring to one of the facts gathered in this material that relates to the conditions of the times of 1955 and the decade that followed, I assume that certain conditions created could also be because of lack of knowledge - they could be caused by many different factors but, in regard to my writing earlier in this material, what does remain as a very basic conclusion to gather from this is that people had quickly accepted the claims made by their friends and the media - specifically, that certain amphetamine substances (advertised) read as "increased energy", "utilitarian drug", "weight loss", "antidepressant". These ideas are related to ideologies of individualistic self-interests - as the historical fact demonstrates, these were the conditions of the world (a loss of meaningful relationships, a booming economy, narcissism, keeping up with the joneses) created by those ideologies (as in based on self-interest and materialistic gain) and that's how, commonly, people make decisions if they were affected by those particular conditions of the world. (Based on the phenomenon of the 1955 time period, I could gather that the reason for the spread of individualistic lifestyles is significant to keep in mind - this reason is about the allure of psychoactive substances - I infer that they have a powerful control over ones conscience and reasoning. Its significant to understand this because of that its been demonstrated that certain conditions create the circumstances for certain mind altering substances to be more accepted - that's something that we can learn from. The only thing left to question, I suppose, is this question "how insensitive are we to be to it if this is an expected consequence of our nations ideologies and technology"?)

  Now your probably thinking, "Oh, so I'm stuck in some kind of underworld of the 21st century?". That's not really what I mean. Social networking can enhance your connections with people but only if you think that you really can find meaningful connections. (The rest of the time, my intuition tells me that real physical connections can still just as easily erode as online ones if one keeps in contact with Facebook or some other smartphone app in the midst of them.)

 Of course, some people see freedom in living alone. The number of people living alone has increased since the year 2000 and has greatly increased for men since 1970. Choosing to live by yourself is not a problem. Being forced to be alone, having a hard time finding people that you have anything in common with, being around people that are too busy because they are taking care of their families and you don't have one to take care of, and "the like" is a totally different story.

-  "(Think about the sociopathic kids who shot other kids in Red Lake, Minnesota; at Northern Illinois University; at Virginia Tech—what do they have in common? They were living in isolated places.)"

 So what is going to help? You might imagine that a big city could foster feelings of loneliness - its crowded, uncomfortable, and there's too much noise and its busy. Perhaps not. Use an internet search engine and find out about the benefits of living alone in a big city. There's more people living by themselves in a big city. Perhaps it has something to do with finding the job that you want there. However, living alone in places where other people do is the way to do it. Perhaps one could live near a vacation spot because, usually, with its amenities, it helps. (Use this map to find out which places have this characteristic):

https://public.tableau.com/profile/tim.henderson#!/vizhome/Livingalone/Dashboard4

Remaining connected and intimate:

- "about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher." Adapted from the Encyclopedia of Psychology.

- eharmony Neil Clark Warren “Being in a bad relationship is a million times worse than having no relationship at all".

- "In a recent study conducted by Paula England, a professor of sociology at NYU and president of the American Sociological Association, about 90 percent of both male and female college students reported that they wanted to get married"

  On the one hand, there is advice on the internet that tells us that we shouldn't validate our worth based on dates and marriages. On the other hand, if you intuit that sex plays an irresistible role (in most people) in the feelings of intimacy, your probably right. Studies have been done for people that have had sex - even having sex with friends. Depending on who you are and how you do things, studies have shown that sex can, sometimes, enhance the friendship. Clearly, sex plays a role in marriages but without having too much sex - once a week sex is the moderate amount.


 In contrast to decades ago, as when America was characterized as a Christian nation, this nation is becoming less under its influence. (The most tantalizing hope for our freedom, as an example, is to ban the compulsory rights of the conversion therapy programs.). In those days, most of the things taught in school conformed to the popularity of the ideas that come from Christianity. Abstinence-only programs that teach sexuality are among them. What belongs in the public educational institutions such as the "moral guidance" given by the sexual abstinance classes or the classes that teach evolution are still in debate today. However, the influence of these old systems are becoming less popular.

 Popular opinion is changing in regard to this abstinence-only heterosexual ideal. "By emphasizing marriage as the expected standard, programs also exclude gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth and ignore their needs." Its no question that those religious people saying that the things taught meet a standard, which relates only to marriage and having children, is a kind of favoritism of religion. The fact that people have had a difficult time changing these supplied unfounded ideals of a belief system in the public schools reveals conservative Christianity as coercive and discriminatory.

- Mike Huckabee says "expecting Christians to accept same-sex marriage is "like asking someone who's Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli."

 Perhaps part of the reason why kids are confused about satisfying intimate relationships is because of that orthodox religion teaches that "the nuclear family is the foundation of society.". The bible portrays an important role that the design of the male and female body intends. Generally, it seems that Christians don't find much of any meaning to "live for oneself" and then, consequently, "avoid" marriage.
 
  In regard to an opinion of the same-sex attraction, does your inquisitiveness come active and get you to ask "Why can't they find happiness elsewhere?". Its not impossible but consider the following:

The bible can show that human beings are usually bodily, motivated by sexuality, and are usually passionate about any kind of sex by nature. Perhaps our knowledge of the surveys and statistics done in the research community of psychology on sexual relations can demonstrate this as well (not to prove the trustworthy of the bible, though!). The bible gives a very clear, concise, and emphatic message about sex since the principles of it is in the begging of the scriptures which has its title of "Genesis" and, in fact, after that, an entire book of the bible is actually dedicated to the health of sexual relations: "Song of Solomon". (Take heed of the fact that I never even read "Song of Solomon" but I know what its about and that's all that I needed to know)

 Now we have some facts to support the conclusion that peoples sexuality is source of a lot of temptation - that its a contributing factor to a lot of conflict in the world. Human beings face many challenges without participating in the dating and sex scene even if they don't care much for sex and dating - the challenges relate to loneliness. Some people even feel coerced to be in a "male-female complementary bible based" relationship because that its not a "weak tie", of course. I suppose that this is why the following had gained popularity: (Exodus International) "Exodus had 83 chapters in 34 states. Its president, Alan Chambers, claimed in 2004 that he knew “tens of thousands of people who have successfully changed their sexual orientation.”

 With this in mind, sex, in regard to same-sex attraction or something else unrelated to reproduction, is now revealed as something that "one struggles with" if they think that it goes against their religious moral convictions. I have found out that even people whom are gay and do not think that there is anything wrong with their "intimate pursuits", when I was researching what was said about the PrEP anti-HIV pill, gay people had admitted that its influence to over-indulge in sexual encounters goes against the common moral convictions of the gay community. In this case, the "temptation" in this community is "too much sex" in contrast to the mere "desire to have sex" found in the other group of people. This was why the PrEP drug was discussed in the article with a little censor and admonishment.

 Decades ago, sexual relationships were more about survival - someone needed to support you financially etc. Perhaps for this reason, people did not have much time to wonder about who they were compatible with and perhaps the focus was on taking care of the children which increased the element of purpose in their marriage. The woman in the marriage may have stayed home to take care of the kids. Usually, people are strongly influenced by either economics or religious backgrounds. What else to look for in that time period which influenced peoples decision making is not known to me right now. Find out about the relationships between economics and other phenomenon such as commuter relationships, divorce, child abuse, domestic abuse, and hate crimes on an internet search engine and you can validate easily what I am saying.

 In regard to what I wrote earlier about the nature of relationships of the past, perhaps part of the confusion caused by our lack of knowledge about meaningful connections could be because of that, generally, some of us were raised by parents whom were influenced by the problems and ignorance that their parents had, stemming from the problems and ignorance that influenced their generation.

 Therefore, to give an example of the conditions in the world and the challenges that certain people face because of those conditions: in the midst of people getting married to "fill in the void" and then take care of children, we can find evidence that then they have little time to hang out with friends. If you are not caring about dates or sex, a lot of people around you may, confusingly, match that opposite scenario - in fact, to an overwhelming degree, most people around you may be dating, searching for a date, or are married. For people that do not date and are affected by many conditions around them that I have not mentioned but including some conditions that I have mentioned, those conditions create feelings of loneliness. It may even influence us to feel like we are not participating in the norms of goal-setting around us.

 Sub-urban areas are popular for raising kids. If your child-oriented, how much time do you have to spend with friends? Usually, very little. For married child-raising-couples, since most of their time is devoted to their kids, even their marriages can, and influenced by other harmful factors, get harmed by the hindering that it has on the gradual attention that is needed towards each of them in order to find some kind of intimate "stability".

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-parenting/2009/04/13/having-children-adds-stress-to-marriage:

-  "90 percent of couples say the quality of their relationship declined after their first child was born"

 In summary, for this section of information on intimate relationships and loneliness, as to interpret a basic conclusion of the divorce rate, perhaps this shows that its not real easy to find people that one is compatible with for meaningful connection. I suppose that just as there is impaired rapport in a marriage or a date, without referring to prejudices of how the opposite sex contrasts in mindset with the other, perhaps people that form "weak ties" could be represented by that statistic. Since loneliness is interconnected with divorce, its a basic conclusion to assume that there's a high level of emphasis on peoples interaction to be romantic in order for it to be a "stronger tie".

   In combination with so many other things, loneliness has its contributing factors and seems to me like a very real and devastating condition of the world. Its now known by the reader that parents whom have kids could sometimes be lonely. Though, I wouldn't expect the statistic on this to show it to be high on the continuum. Parents whom had kids and that their kids are busy doing their own thing - "they've got their own life going" - these are the empty nesters and they have a high rate of loneliness. I suppose this plays a role in loneliness for the elderly.


The conditions of the world (summarizing most of the essentials of my discussion on generation "I"):

As of now, the basic facts have been given out within the first pages and then also this much later written material that comes after it. The phenomenon that we are dealing with in this world (I'm talking about the psychological phenomenon of peoples mindsets and feelings) is the existence of certain conditions which may have their parallels to similar events in history - these unusual conditions are created by the politics of peoples ideologies or religious beliefs, the marketing campaigns exaggerating the claims of their product, economic events which can play a role in peoples interaction with their families, (disinformation / mind-altering drugs etc) technological developments that appeal to our emotions - ones that parallel in principle to advertising which can create harmful distractions for us etc, and technological developments and ideologies that play a role in our perceptions of social networks such as Facebook and dating apps.

Meeting the standard (page 3)

Meeting the standard:

Body shaming:

 Imagine that you were under stress and that because of the stress, over a short period of time, you gained 30 lbs. You were so shocked by this unexpected weight gain that you decided to avoid a certain amount of food. You felt like you needed to avoid the overwhelming anxiety of people telling you that your body seems absolutely disgusting. Perhaps no one even bothered telling you what they think of your body ever and, yet, you still always obsessed over this idea. You excessively exercised. You limited caloric intake, excessively. You may have tried certain diet pills. Sometimes, someone controls their caloric intake and their weight remains the same. So it may even go unnoticed.

 What does your intuition tell you? Is anything wrong? That's right - you would have an eating disorder. These are usually something like "anorexia", "bulimia", "binge eating disorder". In this scenario, it was all done in excess. Being diagnosed with eating disorders might make men feel ashamed because of that its popularly known as a "woman's disorder". However, its on the rise for men as well as it is for woman in these particular times in history.

 How could it get noticed? The effects of this excessive dieting can lead to the worsening of depression and anxiety, People may comment on your body and tell you that they thought that what you were doing was a little excessive. If you abused steroids, the damage done by them will reveal themselves to you. Weight-loss pills are usually powerful vaso-constrictor's - they can increase the heart-rate which, depending on a many number of factors, may cause blood-pressure to drop too low, causing blackouts. In severe cases, because of the effects of an these kinds of eating disorders, you can end up with anemia or actually have a heart-attack.

 "Overweight and obese youths who experience rapid weight loss are particularly vulnerable to developing eating disorders, a 2013 paper in the journal Pediatrics found."

 "Dr. Kimberli McCallum, founder and director of McCallum Place eating disorder centers in St. Louis, guesses 80 percent of eating disorders in men go undiagnosed."

 However, as I have explained earlier, disinformation can cleverly take advantage of our credibility. People are being exposed to anti-obesity messages. The media and the many people that we are interconnected with may participate in this extreme bias of things. (For some reason, I always put emphasis on the media, though. After all, the media portrays certain ideologies, celebrities, or particular phenomenon that appeals to ones emotions. Its also an indicator what is popular in the social and political realms.)

 The conclusion here to arrive at may be that politics works only one way. Its one-sided. When politics picks one significant social phenomenon and moralize it, after that, everything thing else loses its appeal.

 In regard to obesity, the media helps moralize body image through its advertising mediums so that
people become more acclimated to it. If its an issue in the political realm, the reader may assume that the media is a tool of political forces. If you look it up on a popular search engine, the puritan ethic somehow relates to how many things get moralized in our culture. Laziness and gluttony (not caring about why it happens or what its really about) are, somehow, thought of as the perfect political and economic tools of success in our contemporary times.

The message of the media:

 All day and everyday what messages can we be bombarded with in regard to body image? Who is depressed?: The obese. Who is unattractive?: The obese. Who is lazy?: the obese.

 Never does the haunting of this sociocultural deluge of stigma attached to our dietary life-style ever seem to die down. The medical community says one thing and then it says something else in place of its old research later on in time: (as an example) "high cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease" vs. "HDL cholesterol protects against heart disease" or "Fake butter substitutes: processed oils such as margarin are better for your diet" vs "These oils contain omega 6 and trans fats - they are not balanced with omega 3's and are actually harmful"

   It seems like common sense now that I know that thin people are being glamorized (thin celebrities and thin models are in particular). People whom are thin are usually seen as healthy, moralistic, and happier.

   Even that body weight is usually not directly known through thyroid, hormonal, or cellular decay, the medical community comes up with some sensational studies - its all about that obese people have a "brain disease". Researchers declare that the western diet "weakens the blood-brain barrier". A study may show that low-socioeconomic status is linked to obesity. A study will show that obesity is linked to ADHD and depression! There are multiple genes linked to storing body weight and eating habits. Honestly, some people have a substandard biological characteristics that can be assigned to a gene variation: The "APOE4" gene variant is linked to heart disease, diabetes, and the aging of the brain. People with down syndrome can actually have two copies of this gene variant since that part of their chromosome in that abnormal copy had characterized that disease. This is why people with down-syndrome are more likely to develop Alzheimer's and dementia. However, this gene variant doesn't affect most people.

 In the midst of that, the media portrays obese people with strong condemnation, giving them attributes such as "people with a lack of self-control", "people that are self-medicating fat pigs and are the burdens to society", "People that ruin their relationships with others because of their bad habits" and "people that are both unhappy and unattractive".

 You were persuaded to think that the standard is only being thin since those people are more moralistic. Aside from that thinking, use your intuition and start wondering about this standard. You already know by now that thin people can have eating disorders which can go unnoticed. You know now that these disorders such as anorexia and substance abuse(to lose the weight) are reported to be on the rise because of the media giving anti-obesity messages etc.

 Statistical analysis also show that thin people and obese people eat the same amount of junk food. While the media portrays obese people as self-medicating their sad life-style with junk food and that the government seems coercive to tax empty calorie beverages, what does your intuition tell you about this moralistic conquest to portray certain people as incompetent in the midst of certain other people being portrayed as competent and meeting the standard? Perhaps anytime we are dealing with just obesity - not, specifically, high-blood pressure, diabetes, and high LDL cholesterol, we get into the politics of our health rather than the science. Think of this statistical fact:  "Underweight Americans consume more junk food than those who are morbidly obese".

 Fat shaming starts at a young age. In the work place or in the media, its not just sarcasm if you think that "In the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton said Donald Trump called this woman "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeping," because she is Latina" is sarcasm. Skinny people are the ones to harass people with these insults. Do you see now how, in many cases, influencing certain people to think that they meet a standard creates the factors contributing to this phenomenon of narcissism? Indeed, this is significant. Its not just a small problem in the world.

   Here's another popular idea to influence peoples thinking: Having self-esteem issues and then suddenly improving in mood and self-esteem after gastric bypass surgery. Maybe your conscience is giving you a vague impression of something being weird about this. It just doesn't seem right to attach self-esteem to a medical procedure that simply constraints a bad eating habit (but can also be a factor in gut microbial interaction). Perhaps we all like to believe that our self-esteem etc relates to our relationship with food but that's just forming a belief based on our observation of how we find connections between certain things because of that we take for granted how we are influenced by our personal relationships and financial situation etc. Perhaps this information may properly counterbalance with those other claims that I had mentioned: According to the journal "JAMA surgery", people who undergo surgery for weight loss are 50% more likely to attempt suicide after the operation than before it.

   Take heed of the fact that there are three general kinds of weight-loss surgeries. One of them cannot be reversed. Gastric bypass surgery limits the nutrient uptake of food with the bypass from the stomach to a lower part of the digestive system after the stomach and into the intestine (increasing the likelihood of getting anemia etc). A rare complication of this surgery is that one cannot survive with the normal kind of food intake because of the severity by which one cannot absorb nutrients. I read that gastric bypass surgery can usually be reversed but I am not the info page expert so the reader has to look everything up as thoroughly as they usually would instead of thinking that I am not lazy and that I simply just know things pretty well.

   Of all the people whom had weight loss surgery, it is estimated that 1/3 of them regain all the weight back in approx. 36 months. Undergoing weight loss surgery is interconnected with a worrisome rise in the risk for them to abuse alcohol and all this talk about the flaw in human design makes me confused about another study: One study shows that months to years after gastric bypass surgery, for unknown reasons, the surgery has an affect on the chemistry of the urine, causing a much more significant likelihood of getting a kidney stone. You'd think that the medical community fixed the obesogenic faulty digestive system but, instead, they created new problems with its unknown and confusing causative agents which is causing this abnormalcy (by which they are still hoping to find out through some other analysis).
  
   Whenever you hear a story about peoples lives being transformed by being thin, just like everything else in this world that has a persuasive influence such as the times when there was a glorification of Prozac and Paxil in the late 1990's, instead of being credulous about it, listen to your conscience. Think of how wrong this world is to convince what is ones' key to success in life in a marketing scheme that might very cleverly make you think that you can meet a particular standard when you accept some kind of pill or medical procedure.

    Next time someone's' weight loss surgery gets a glorifying report from the people that they know, what does your intuition tell you? While its not at all bad to recover ones health, its another thing to ascribe new meaning to ones life because they meet a standard - going from being a "burden to society" to "being restored of ones sanity and reconciling the relationships around them" seems like an unrealistic expectation out of people.

    Think of the depiction of what we are dealing with: I imagine that one could start meditating on that there were different body types: ectomorph, endomorph, mesomorph. Oh, but that's not all: now that/this someone whom I imagined just figured out quickly that only two of them are associated with being healthy - the previous two before the last one is what I am talking about (by which this last one is interconnected with obesity and diabetes); Since excessive body weight can be bad for the spinal coulombs, is associated with old age and cellular insufficiency in the muscles (in other words, looking like your sickly or old?), is interconnected with the inefficient blood circulation provided by a inadequate heart muscle since its not designed for that particular body weight, and diabetes etc, you could conclude that the last one is the bad body type.

   But if you didn't include the study done showing that overweight people are more likely to survive a heart attack than the (healthy) thin people out there, then maybe you'd learn to hate any of the body types that it isn't the good kind. Maybe you wish that you looked like a skinny celebrity anyways.

   To take this notion of being affected by some kind of hereditary condition further, I suppose since its estimated that 1 out of 5 Americans are affected by mental illness and that 1 out of 10 school children are diagnosed with ADHD, I could form the idea that there are many bad genes out there. However, in contrast to that long after the astronomical amounts of ads for Prozac and Paxil after the 1990's and also long after the fact of many alleged miracle drugs found for mental health woes both being popularized and provided, how come many people resort to highly addictive drugs on the black market more then ever before at this time in history? If the human body wasn't so complicated - beyond our human ordinary minds, then why did certain studies come out these past couple of years showing the negative impact that certain therapeutic drugs have(?) - What about the black box warning being put on certain antidepressants years after they were popularized (in the 2000's era)? What about the contradictory results of certain studies done about kids taking Ritalin but then showing that this does not lead to them genuinely improving with their study habits? What about the study done that showed the negative impact that gastric bypass surgery has on pregnant woman (showing the negative impact) on the developing fetus (as in the baby being born underweight)? Perhaps the human mind will always remain separate from the workings of the universe. No human invented our biological form. Our senses do not allow us to perceive the limitless complexities of this universe. However, some people probably feel entitled to have undue control over the fate of biological life.

Generation "I" (page 2)

                                                                                    Generation "I"
An introduction to disinformation:


   Generally, sometimes we can find evidence to reveal that we live in an "age of ignorance". The phenomenon of this ignorance relates to how people understand the nature of the world that they live in. Any time a study is conducted, a person is assigned to censor the validity of certain information, or that funding has been supplied to a research group, is it ever a question whether the source of funding can influence the decisive interpretation in regard to the validity of the data? Is it ever a question of why the data had produced a certain result? Is it ever a question of how the study was even done? Are people being deceived by inaccurate information? Are people being deceived by some kind of information bias? All of the typing below gives some explanation of what I have learned in regard to what information bias is. It also reveals a different perspective than the bias we may hear in regard to both the habits and significant influences of our culture.


 An example of this relates to the apocalyptic scenarios described in the number one religion of America: Christianity. (Of course, there's' always been evangelists out there promising meaning in ones life if they declare themselves as truly devout. With this in mind, typical human thought may seem to us as usually biased in its nature.) Over the decades, telephonic and paper surveys were given out. These surveys were for to record information answered by a sample population. The questions of these surveys were about the nature of the lifestyle and beliefs of people who are either Christians or other. However, I want to mention that recent polls have been evaluated. They have been discussed by writers whom have their articles available on google news. It turns out that the recent past survey polls that reveal the approximate percentage of Christian believers in America can be misleading since the questions asked by the survey has to be correctly interpreted: Its been revealed that Christians whom are nominal(i.e Christian nominal) are answering questions on a survey and that they are being more honest about their convictions. On the other hand, sometimes information gets broadcast through other sources which would reveal differently interpreted data. This is called information bias.

 The digital age: Perhaps, throughout history, knowledge was always popular in the form of ideological convictions. (As an example, the ideological conviction of one nations importance over another still haunts the world with threats of war today.) The kinds of ideologies that I am thinking of manifest themselves through the media, educational institutions, and our families etc. Their validity is mostly driven by fear; Well, that is if its even a question of what that really means anymore. How I would like to explain how some of this manifests in our world, in summary, is that biased and emotional journalists can flood the internet with their rants on political and religious ideologies. Meanwhile, the media on the television or radio has its power to entice viewers with its emotionality(or threaten us with it, if that's a more correct definition). What's all over in the media?: I'm talking about stuff like global warming, (obesity) the junk food industries, terrorism, racism, and a volatile economy. Unless our conscience breaks through these barriers of emotionality, we should be able to be encouraged to proceed with rational discourse on a subject. As an example of being deterred from this encouragement, its understandable that we don't learn to be righteous by being threatened by our labeled inferiority in our ability to apprehend what righteousness is. At that, perhaps in an imaginary classroom etc, in that situation where political goals defeat the search for any other possibilities which may be because of the edicts religious convictions, we are either just being threatened or we are being ignored. In relation to this idea, throughout a period of recent history, perhaps meaningful subjects in a typical public school have always been shunned at for one reason or another. I don't know for sure how to trace this vague phenomenon to any source. I just understand that it has an existence in this world. Ethics and philosophy, for example, are meaningful academic subjects. Relating to some of the principles of philosophy, making arguments for or against either the truth or identity of something is the mental process of in-depth reasoning. Rationality should be known as a way of analyzing as in to not just mean to defend only one opinion - unless its really not much of an opinion and its more based on fact etc. Sometimes collecting facts is about contrasting one idea with another. Another example of meaningful learning situations is learning from experience (which teaches wisdom) - certainly, we can have a limited view of the world without useful conversations but, sometimes, this is another significant mental faculty that seems, at large, lost in our current American culture.

 Other than that people are using their brains to quickly scan information rather than grasping the meaning of information (as in certain phenomenon or data) through their arriving to their own conclusion by some chain of reasoning, I think that, as a significant contributor to mindlessness(a symptom of trusting disinformation), there may also be the element of being distracted by so much information as it is - not just any of the obvious information commonly known but also in the form of entertainment.

 (Aside from wondering if my confidence in my ability to potentially interact with other people through writing all of this is worth it anyways, I thought of myself as "fact-finding", rationalizing vague theories about the world, and integrating some useful information into a coherent whole. In spite of that, even I wonder how much I was affected by the mindlessness of scanning for information and then repeating facts in a slightly different voice. Is this all that I am doing?)

There are certain studies that have been done in the neurosciences that show how the human brain can change in response to playing video games/computer games - well, as in data coming from a sample size of people. Some studies say positive things such as referring to a strengthening of concentration ability(I wouldn't know how long those effects last, though) - with this being said, keep in mind, perhaps it is depending on how old the person is and what video game is being played in the study - other data shows negative things such as decreased connectivity in the brain center that is known to be involved in the formation of memories (which is probably not a good thing): the hippocampus. I will not go into the details of this information in this introduction to disinformation, however.

 To bring this notion even further, the constant distraction driven by mobile devices (perhaps, mainly android devices) has been declared as accountable for creating a negative brain alteration in some people - its called "digital dementia". This disorder has been revealed to have its manifestation in its effects on the impairment of the many structures that play a role in the optimal functioning of the right hemisphere of the brain. This "disorder" of some kind is characterized by forgetfulness, poor concentration, and poor ability to understand peoples feelings etc..

 All of this indicates that, on some level, our influences of the 21'st century are not always good. The dependence on computer technology does not always foster good habits in people. What if the manifestation of this digital dementia is, for example, repetitively going online into Facebook and then posting trivial gossip about, as an example, the person that you saw riding his skateboard and crashing into a garbage can? Do you intuit that, in some ways, when you know that people react towards dating apps, Facebook, news feeds, and public forums as them being virtually real communities, it can lead you into thinking the idea that the conditions of the real world perhaps aren't so great? (I wish that I had more info in regard to how the online world influences positively or negatively the outside world.)

 No matter what the debate about this "inadequacy" actually proves, its still important to merely prove that our conscience and our intuition are both significant - that, ultimately, they should be cherished faculties of the mind.

A rise in narcissism?:

 At the extreme end, narcissism can be a personality disorder which has some clinical symptoms that can be found in the DSM manual of psychiatry. Look this up on a popular search engine or in a public library if you want to know about it in detail. 

 You may think that narcissism people are usually viewed as successful by some definition of success. Perhaps in many cases they are. Perhaps even you - the reader - likes having narcissistic tendencies. However, that's one view of things.

 What do I mean by narcissism though? I'm talking about inadequacies in empathy, compassion, and consideration for others as part of a long-term problem in our culture - not any one person in particular.

 I'm also referring to someone whom chronically feels hopeless or stressed by trying to meet a standard. What standard am I talking about may you ask? I know that I'm being vague right now in this writing, however, later on you will know what I mean in my writing. These particular standards could be as simple as their level of physical attractiveness which is, of course, a natural inclination in their unconscious desire for just dignity.
                                                             
                                                                                   (Some interesting findings)

-Published in the year 2006, by administering the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) to 200 celebrities from across the entertainment, Dr. Drew Pinksy had compiled data and then published his findings in a journal of psychology. "Reality television stars -- the least talented or skilled group in the study -- are the most narcissistic." These people are commonly known as famous-for-being-famous celebrities.

-SYZYGY did a nation-wide survey in the year 2016 using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory test(NPI-16): "SYZYGY, a full service-digital agency, partially owned by WPP, today released the results of a new survey that found adult Millennials are 16% more narcissistic than other generations and remain narcissistic as they age" The findings reveal how the questions answered which relate to technology usage is interconnected with a higher score on that test; You may find this through many popular search engines.

-There's a strong correlation between the children of high-income parents and narcissism compared to the ones that are of lower income.: This connects with ideas that these narcissistic children are that these people are usually the ones that live in conditions that foster their sense of entitlement. They are more likely to adopt the ideas of being independent - that they don't need any outside assistance from other people.
    
                                                                               (Now consider the conclusion)

   So now we are grasping that narcissism is interconnected to some of the effect of economics and technology. Its also interconnected to our families, educational institutions, and our friends or the lacking thereof (of that safety-net), of course.

   I believe that I was also mentioning indirectly that there are different kinds of narcissism. One that relates to ones social standing(The grandiose types), of one that relates to level of material satisfaction, and also of another vague kind of polarity (vulnerable) of narcissistic people - people that grow up with "depressed, emotionally unavailable mothers" etc.

   Narcissism as in being defined as "children being taught that they are to be overvalued" in the parenting scheme generally should not be considered to result in good things such as them growing up to be a leader. Failures are much more difficult to endure later in life if too much importance is attached to certain tasks which are believed to offer the real rewards in life.

   Of course, the educational system teaches kids to be self-focused; Yes, that's right - that's what they really teach: mortification. The assignments do not teach patience in the learning process and these assignments are not character building. In this system, its not really about learning. Its just about graduating. This relates to what I wrote(actually, typed on a computer) earlier in regard to the educational system not teaching meaningful subjects - subjects that either relate more to ones character such as working with others or that which appeals to their thinking skills.

So it makes sense when a conclusion reached by a researcher of psychology will show that there is some kind of connection between times of prosperity - mainly economic prosperity, and that of peoples focus on themselves which can lead to narcissism. (When we are talking about the effects of economic turmoil, its ironic that this is thought of as being "something good came out of that situation. It had some meaningful purpose in its effect on (some) people".) With this in mind, generally, when there is someone growing up during times of war, surviving a natural disaster, and, more specifically, just being in situations that foster ones attention towards others, it is virtually the same in principle in its effects as it is as other things being under the classification of some environmental stimuli of influence such as being influenced by socio-economic status or the much more advanced technological developments in those times - keep in mind, this current mobile device revolution is a significant tech development.

 "Jean M. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell show that narcissism has increased as quickly as obesity has since the 1980s."

 With this last reference to someone's ideas about something, with this in mind, it is now time to transition to the other subject - a subject that relates, in many ways, to this narcissism - this intense focus on ones self. Its called "Meeting the standard".