Stats

I've been wanting to write for a while, but yet haven't had the motivation to. Perhaps it is just that I've been out of practice, and hence have thought that I've forgotten how to phrase words together, or just anticipating it might be hard to do. Anyway, it need to keep up constant writing, or else I might never start up again.

I seem to have lost some of that motivation I originally had during my med block. I was going in, going on ward rounds, doing ward stuff, hangin' with the team, and getting pages and pages of learning issues, that I would go home (i.e. Chi's place) and study for a few hours every night. Now, there just seems to be less to do, less to learn, and I'm unsure of what to study, how to spend my time. Watching surgery is great, but the same sort of things seem to pop up all the time.

What to do?

Anyway, as I think I've previously mentioned, I seemed to have drawn some affinity between games and real life. Many games have a system for categorising and breaking down a person into different aspects - a common one is describing someone in terms of physical attributes and mental attributes. An example of this might be strengh, dexterity, constitution, intelligence, wisdom, charisma. Ideally, it would be best to split up the description of a person into more categories than that - and assumedly the more you used, the closer you'd approximate to what's true in real life.

But in any case, what I was pondering the other day was the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom. The traditional view of intelligence was the ability to work things out or calculate things, whilst wisdom was more along the lines of 'know how' or 'street smarts' or 'awareness of surroundings'. The problem with this was that the distinction was all a bit vague to me - I mean, what is it about the wise man that makes him wise?

A more concrete example came to me when I was thinking about arguing and reasoning. To me, the intelligent person would be able to, from the original assumptions, be able to work out and extrapolate all the conclusions that these entail, and do so relatively quickly, compared to others. In essense, they'd be able to 'compute', manage and manipulate the data easily. On the other hand, my perception of a wise person, is one that would be able to see the big picture, and be able to choose the right assumptions to start off with, and to choose the right path to argue along, without necessarily drawing out all the details of all the conclusions possible. It would basically be keeping things in context, and seeing the bigger picture.

And it seems to me that some people lack this second skill at times, although they have the capability, as demonstrated by their conclusion forming skills. All wisdom requires is a bit thought beforehand, I think. In the context of a discussion one important question that needs to be asked is, "What is my point?", or from another perspective, "How is this point relevant to the discussion". It really iritates me when people either argue tangentially, where they lose sight of the idea in discussion by making non-relevant statements; bring about evidence that isn't linked to the conclusion that they are drawing; or when they choose to employ an argument against a point, while at the same time using that point to support their own conclusion.

Though this all sounds a bit vague, I think the main thing is people need to keep track of what it is they want to say, and then only say stuff that is pertinent to the topic. This would ensure a lot less time is spend with unneccessary clarifications and misunderstandings.

morsel

It starts off insidiously.

First a small bite, a tantalising taste - I savour the spicy richness, the crisp texture resounds in my head. My taste buds buzz with delight.

I pause and wait, comtemplating the experience, absentmindedly reflecting back on the experience that has just passed as I go on with other things I was doing previously. Time passes.

The last threads of flavours die out, and slowly, my attention once again becomes focussed on the little bowl on my table. I stop doing what I'm doing, and delicately pick out my next target within the pile. This time the sharp tanginess is expected, but the burst of flavour is just as pleasing as before. I munch away, and the sensations gradually fade out as they chase the remnants running down my throat. Time passes.

This time, subconscious thoughts penetrate through my mind, popping up here and there, wondering about when the next might be. I am confused as I am distracted away from my task at hand. I look around the room, searching for what might be bothering me - my gaze once again rests on the little white dish. I grab the most perfect of the lot - little specks of colour speckling across the regular rounded shape - and quickly gobble it down. The flavour hits the palate, and I am sated.

The flavour is disappearing, but there is still a lingering question on my tongue. I frown. Attention wanders between the books and the bowl. There is a quick but intense inner struggle, me watching on the sidelines, not knowing what the outcome will be. But of course, I do know. My hand reaches out, and grabs whatever it can. This time I get the same hit, but it is somehow different. My tongue searches for what it is after, but yet can't quite locate. The flavour has built up, with this new assault combined with the remnants of the previous one, yet it is somehow not enough.

I quickly combine a pile easy enough to fit into my mouth now, and gobble it. I pass the contents around my mouth, searching longingly for the climax to hit, yet it is not quite there nor the same. The bitter saltiness is starting to creep up upon my palate, as the initial vestiges of the fine spiciness dwindle down to nothing. My books are forgotton about.

I lick my fingers now, searching longingly for the elusive target that may have accidentally been stuck there. They lack the overwhelming saltiness, but yet don't satiate me entirely. My handfuls grow by the second, as more and more are needed to keep my mind at peace. The white ceramic bowl is soon empty.

Soon, bowl after bowl is filled and emptied soon after the contents leave there resting place, and my physiological dependence and tolerance grows. There is no more pleasure in this endeavour - it is just keeping whatever stimulation on my tongue going for as long as possible. I am scared of letting the feeling go away. Brine overwhelms my fingers, and my senses - I can smell nothing but the ooze of the flavour hanging around the gritty ends of my teeth now. I feel I can go no further.

But the package is still not finished, a small group of left-overs sitting at the bottom. Though not wanting to continue the onslaught to my senses, reason finally succumbs; physiological dependence finally gives way to psychological dependence, and the rest are ungratiously spilled out on the used and dirty bowl and licked up clean.

And then, just like that, it is finished. There is no more. I am exhausted. Brief thoughts of grabbing a new lot cross my mind, but are duly shut out. I am nauseated. And then I think how lucky it is that there was an endpoint to all of this, that I was able to stop.

The complete stages of addiction, over a bag of chips.

Theory Evaluation

From the history, philosophy and sociology of science, there are at least four fundamental categories of criteria by which theories are judged:
(1) logical criteria
(2) empirical criteria
(3) sociological criteria
(4) historical criteria.

(1) Logical criteria:
(a) a simple, unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary
(b) logically consistent internally
(c) logically falsifiable
(d) clearly limited by explicitly stated boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not any particular data are or are not relevant to the verification of falsification of the theory.

(2) Empirical criteria:
(a) be empirically testable itself or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable
(b) actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions
(c) concern reproducible results
(d) provide criteria for the interpretation of data as facts, artifacts, anomalies, or as irrelevant.

(3) Sociological criteria:
(a) resolve recognised problems, paradoxes, and/or anomalies irresolvable on the basis of preexisting scientific theories
(b) pose a new set of scientific problems upon which scientists may work
(c) posit a "paradigm" or problem-solving model by which these new problems may be expected to be resolved
(d) provide definitions of concepts or operations beneficial to the problem-solving abilities of other scientists

(4) Historical criteria:
(a) meet or surpass all of the criteria set by its predecessors or demonstrate that any abandoned criteria are artifactual
(b) be able to accrue the epistemological status acquired by previous theories through their history of testing (i.e. be able to explain all of the data gathered under previous relevant theories in terms either of fact or artifact, without anomalies
(c) be consistent with all preexisting ancillary theories that already have established scientific validity.

(From: On Defining a Scientific Theory)

Metablog

Why do I blog?

I've been wondering for a while. I don't think that I particularly blog for exactly the same reasons as other people do...

I don't I particularly type for others to see. It's purpose is not really for others to see, and for me, I don't think that essentially it should make much difference what others think of me. Ideally, it should just be my own feelings that are produced, and it shouldn't matter what others judge me by, as I should have integrity, and just go by what I evaluate to be best. In other words, I shouldn't have to cave in to peer pressure and discard my own beliefs, even if the majority think I might be mistaken, and I have some evidence to support my beliefs. On the other hand, I can see that being human is being in a part of a social group... that we are not islands and that especially in this modern world, that we rely more and more upon others to survive. It is the fact that we as humans are social animals that necissitates us interacting with others to go on with our everyday existence.

I find that I may have ideas that I get during the day. But when it come to the evening, when I have time to record them, I seem to forget what I had though about. Recently, I've taken to jotting down ideas during the day, and now I've been able to record some of the things that pass through my mind. This, is in fact, one of the reasons, i think, that I blog. I feel that there are many ideas that I get that may in fact be useful (for the future), but that I more often that not forget every day. The idea of blogging therefore captures some of the soon-to-be-forgotten ideas and makes sure that they are on file that I may browse back on them in the future, and perhaps expand on them.

Perhaps another minor reason is that I can practice my typing. I seem to be getting through an aweful lot of words doing this.

I think one reason that I blog that perhaps is not followed up upon is the discussion of ideas. I find it especially interesting when people comment and discuss ideas that have been raised, and that new views on ideas are raised, and perhaps can be discussed. The only problem I find is that people often as not don't follow up on discussions, and I find that what would otherwise be interesing threads, end up dying.

Cruisology

I read an article about people, and their associations. It was much along the lines of a few conversations i've had with friends about judging people. The particular example in case was Wagner, and how he was associated with the Nazis. I must admit that I haven't really been well read into history and what actually happen in his case. But from what I heard, the story goes that in the past Wagner (who was a german?) was rather liked by the Nazis, and it was often played by them. Later on after the war, the Jewish community (which had been persecuted by the Nazis during the war) came to shun and reject the music of Wagner, because it had been supported by the people that had suppressed them.

Now, I don't know the exact history of Wagner, nor the circumstance around it. But, supposing that Wagner had composed some pieces independently with his own focus, and the German regime had taken it on board - then I can't see that there's anything inherently wrong about the music. Although I might be antagonistic against the regime, it logically shouldn't bias my opinion on the music that they supported. But then, comes the question, what happens if Wagner's music was inspired by the Nazi's, and what they stood for? Would that mean that it might be immoral to support the music as well? Or what happens if he never declared that the regime was the inspiration for his music, but that it was originally based upon this? What should the stance be?

In modern terms, this dilemma has arrived at my doorstep through the movie 'War of the Worlds'. On one hand, it sort of seems like a half-decent action movie (though i've heard from friends it's pretty shit anyway), that I might have been willing to see. On the other hand, Tom Cruise has been publicly supporting Scientology and rejecting medicine and psychiatry, which I have witnessed firsthand its effectiveness and logicality. So, should I be boycotting his movie, based upon his belief? Should I change my opinion of his acting based upon what he believes as a person? Am I supporting his belief by indirectly paying for his work for doing a movie that I may enjoy artistally? I still think that I shouldn't see his movie, but I not sure whether this is based on rationality, or just that I don't like scientology, and think its stupid, even though this may not have a sway upon movie acting.

But as yet I still haven't seen his movie.

Etiquette

Study, sleep, study, hospital, eat, study, sleep.

Is this what dedication is about? Is this what next year is about? I can see me losing myself next year, immersing myself in work, thinking nothing but medicine, doing nothing but medicine. Total immersion. I had my first dream about medicine stuff the other day, a sign that i've really been studying hard i think. I am proud of myself (for sticking with it so far). 3 weeks, 12 more to go. Will I be counting the days to the end of the year in a few months time?

I had a few run ins with random 'fate' stuff last week (and the week before). Seems to be a lot of stuff happening straight after I had learnt about it the previous day. Like, for instance, T-tubes, and seeing one used on a gall-bladder the next day, or a tute on SVT's and seeing one in a code blue the next day, or learning about death certificates, after doing one on the previous weekend. I guess in all these cases i'll be presented with these things everyday anyway. But its strange i should learn about them for the first time, and also see them for the first time, in such close chronological order.

I've been thinking about conversations recently. And time management. What got me thinking was the time spent during the day, and especially the formalities involved in talking with new patients, and new people. It seems to me that a lot of time is wasted with cursory introductory messages to people that you already know, where questions are asked where you are not really asking a question. For example, little things like 'how's it going' or 'how are you'. I think that amongst people that you don't know that well, or perhaps with patients, this may be appropriate for starting the social and professionaly interaction, for example. But perhaps in the example between friends, this may not be necessary. With people that you know, it seems to me that they/we have already gotten to an equal stage where these formalities can be dispensed with, and where you are comfortable with just chatting without these social commitments. Therefore, it should be possible to plunge straight into conversations with friends, straight from where you left off the previous time, without any awkwardness.

I think that the same principle should apply with seeing patients too... in a while, you should be able to dispense with formalities and curtesies, and go on straight with what you might want to talk about. I guess the problem might be that sometime, especially in a medical situation, these formalities might be an 'icebreaker' to get on to the real issues, and so in some cases may be warranted. But i stil think with friends, these things should be a triviality, and can be made redundant. If you are felling glum, you should be able to tell your friends straight off without them asking for it.

Diabolic Medicine

I've recently come to an idea to combine parts of my OCPD personality, an addictive computer game (Diablo 2), and medicine. In the past, and in fact during most of my schooling history, study and work has been totally separated from fun and play, in my mind. Although some subjects may have interested me, or perhaps had stimulated my thinking, in the end it usually became tiredsome when I had done too much of it. Not so with games though. Here, I found I could play hours on end without a drop in the interest, nor a drop in my concentration, which was the main problem with studying. So in the past, I had thought about somehow combining them, personal extra-cirricular interest with study, but not working out exactly how this would be. Now, it seems, I may have the answer (at least for me).

In Diablo, one of the most addictive things I found, was the constant search of items. As many as I would find, there would always be more, and it was the quest to find particular ones that probably kept me playing for the length of time that I did. In particular, there were certain groups of items (sets) that had some special properties when you found all of the items of that particular group. These, especially when I had found a few of the pieces of the sets already, really motivated me to play. It was in considering this fact, that I thought of a way in which I could apply it to my studies - classifying illnesses into 'sets' and treating them like items. That way, I could 'run' patients until I had found, for example, all the major causes of chest pain. By treating it as a 'set', I might be able to find some more motivation to go and actively seek out patients.

In addition to this, I was also wondering about the difficulty I had in remembering all the details of the patient, as many had similar problems and co-morbidies - all the features seemed to be blended and blurred into a mess in my brain. Patient details were also hard to remember, just by reading their name on a list. I then thought that attaching some sort of adjective to a person would enable some sort of recall, as I could then distinguish between the patients. Seeing that there were so many patients around (especially this week in my medical ward), I decided that just one adjective wouldn't be enough. After pondering that for a while, it suddenly dawned on me in fact how similar this was to magical items in Diablo! In this way, I think the way I might go about it would be to have sets of different adjectives, perhaps of increasing strength (e.g. plump, fat, overweight, obese, etc.) that I could apply as prefixes and suffixes. In the end, I might end up with something like 'the Lithuanian (prefix) old (quality) woman (item) of incontinence (suffix)'. Of course, to make this more interesting, as well as providing me with more motivation, I might need to 'play' this game with others too, perhaps also having some sort of scoring system to it too.

Although this may seem a bit impersonal, it has to be kept in mind that the primary purposes of this is for motivation to see patients and study, as well as a potentially useful memory aid. It should in no way affect the treatment or management of patients, nor should these names be said to patients - i'm sure they might (in some cases) be less than happy to hear them. Though, this is certainly not unique to medicine, there are many other such examples of things that should not be told to patients, in some settings.

I will trial out these techniques, and see how effective it is for me.

The biggest tenor

Went to hear the MSO on saturday (30/7/05) arvo ('Reaching for the Stars'), and then to Jake's place for a 'welcome back/end of holiday' party. Had a tabasco tequila slammer, the chilli was surprisingly good at covering up the godawful taste of the tequila, and also left a pleasant tingly feeling at the back of my mouth.

After the MSO concert, I had a coffee with Chi at Gloria Jeans, and we ended up doing the Quiz Master. To my surprise, a few of the questions were either identical, or about the same topics, as was in a game of Articulate that I had played at Trish's house the Thursday night before. After doing the quiz, during the course of the conversation, Chi also ended up mentioning in a different context, a reference to one of the previous questions again, which I noticed and commented upon. Lastly, as I was walking along the street from the cafe to dinner, I noticed a poster which I had not seen before (probably because I never really walk around that part of town) in large letters advertising the very same name, in full, that had thrice been referred to previously.

Event 1: Articulate - Amerigo Vespucci, Placido Domingo, (another which I have temporarily forgotten)

Event 2: Quiz master - What continent was named after Amerigo Vespucci, Which of the 3 tenors is the oldest, by at least 5 years (answer was Pavarotti), (the other correlate).

Weirdness factor:
Rareness: 8, it is the first time i've played Articulate, and I haven't done the quiz master for about a year. On the other hand, there were dozens of questions we went through in Articulate, and there were more than 3 questions on the quiz master, so perhaps there is a higher chance than i expected that one or more of the questions correlated with each other.
Awareness: 9, I couldn't have noticed that the questions were to be asked in quizmaster before I chose to do it.
Control: 7, i didn't bring Articulate, but I did choose to do the quizmaster.

Total: 24/30

Event 3: Chi, when talking about some random topic later on, makes up the character name of 'Luciano'.

Weirdness:
Rareness: 7 (its not a common name, one that I don't hear often at all)
Awareness: 2 (Luciano is Pavarotti's first name, even though this was not stated on the answer)
Control: 1 (Chi was talking, which I assume he is mostly in control of)

Total: 10/30

Event 4: Spotting the one poster on the wall of posters inside an alley whilst walking past briskly. Poster has 'Luciano Pavarotti' with some additional advertisement.

Weirdness:
Rareness: 9 (don't think I've seen that before)
Awareness: 6 (probably subconsciously wondering about the name - and my gaze was probably drawn to that particular poster out of the whole wall due to this)
Control: 6 (My actions were mostly in my direct control - gaze, head turning; though its not like I picked that particular route because I knew the poster would be there or anything)

Total: 20/30

The Chairman's Game

Explored Melbourne CBD tonight with Mike, and found all these little hidden places (cafes, restaurants, pubs) in these little narrow alleys. Didn't end up rediscovering the pub with the limericks on the wall that we stumbled across one time when half-drunk. In particular, we saw no signs of The Croft Institute, which as I recall was situated at the end of a blind alley, through about 100 metres of turns and corners in unlit and cardboard cluttered alley. But it's truly amazing how some of these places are known to others, and can become so popular that they're packed and overflow onto the street.

A lot of the Chairman's game was played during my trip in Adelaide. It seems to me that there are 2 phases to the game - one, when people are learning about the basic rules, and the 2nd where people start pondering about player produced rules. And it seems to me that it is when all players are up to this second stage and start on even territory, that things become more interesting.

And it was during these sessions that I first noticed that a person's personality might possibly start to show in the way they play and interact. One of the problems that can arise during gameplay is 2 conflicting rules that people make up. To make it worse, each person does not know what the others' is, nor which specific details they interact with and how they are worded. The other problem is that sometimes there may be mistakes in how a person has put their rule, and questions of their validity may be called upon. Thus conflicts, debates, and full-out arguments have arisen.

Some will, with their very first reaction, assume that their interpretation of someone else's rule is correct, and either stop game play entirely sitting there with an incredulous look on their face, or accuse the maker of the rule of making a mistake (either in being consistent with their own rule, or their rule being legal). Others might outrightly say that 'no', something is incorrect according them, and won't back down any time, and refuse to be corrected even with arguments and reasoning to the contrary. Some may break rules and then correct themselves, incorrectly, at the last minute, but so often so that one feels guilty penalising them all the time - yet going to the stage where one also questions having the rule there in the first place if no-one is going to enforce it. And others are perfect gentlemen, who play by the rules, take their own penalty cards in their own stride, and cause havoc and mayhem with relatively simple rules.

I of course would like to describe myself with this last sentence, but it is not the case. I found myself quite consistently with my emotions boiling up, irritation by my side and even anger not far under the lid. Most of the time it would be over disputes over my own rules, and which I felt I should not back down from (which naturally most of the time I was right about, dammit). But on the other hand, I kept in mind that in a way I was the unofficial host of the game, and so for the interests of keeping the game running (and our friendships intact), I found that I would postpone the argument to a later stage where some of the rules may become more apparent to all. The most beneficial thing for me by playing the game, apart from enjoyment value in watching other people suffer under my tyranny, was to observe my own reactions, and in addition to this to see if I could modulate the natural progression of my feelings. And I found, to an extent, I could, which I felt happy about. I have a feeling that tolerating the errors of others (and my own) will be a skill I'll need in the future.

Adylaissus

Had an trip over the last weekend (Thursday 21/7 - Monday 25/7), where we went up to visit Pete, and explore South Australia a bit. Spent a day at the wineries, and a day at Hahndorf (a German settled town), with lots of lounging around and relaxing. Met up with some people (who all turned out to be Med) after lunch in the German town, and visited Adelaide city, which was largely deserted. Through the trip, we were lucky enough to be housed at Pete's place, with his parents kindly spoiling us with all sorts of food.

One thing I was going to mention was toilet paper. In particular, toilet rolls in bathrooms. It is by no means the first time I've seen this, but it had just prompted my memory. Usually at home, I have my rolls positioned thus:

I had found the particular toilet roll at my host's place positioned rotationally opposite from that which I am used to (with the dangly bit with the next piece of tissue right next to the wall instead of away from it). The reason for this is that I find it easier to obtain my tissues from the roll this way, as having it the other way around means sometimes the tissue sticks to the wall and is hard to hold. And so, I decided to reverse the roll to my liking, and leave it at that. To my surprise, when I came back on my next visit, someone had decided to turn it back the way it was before. From this, I assume that there must have been a reason for wanting the roll that original way, but I have still yet to come up with an explanation. I of course left the roll as it was now, lest I offend someone with my archaic practices.

It was past dusk by the time we were approaching Melbourne on Monday night, and I noticed something interesting. Michael had made the comment previously, when driving towards Adelaide, that we were (slowly) riding towards the sunset. This had the effect of increasing the time we witnessed the sunset, as we were travelling west. Going home, I was therefore surprised to see that even after I thought the sun had gone down for a while, I could still see a ruddy glow through the clouds. Though this was quite a bit darker than that of a normal very late sunset, I thought it could have still been possible that the sun was still meekly shining through. It was only as we approached the outskirts of Melbourne, where the glow was getting brighter, that I realised that it was actually the glow of the city and its lights. The surprising thing that I found, was that all this was visible even a few hundred kilometres away, even when we were beyond Ballarat.

fable

Mum was saying the other day how i should clean up my pile of clothes on the ground, as things like spiders could crawl into them, and then who knows what might happen. I was originally going to clean it up too, before she mentioned anything, but after that, I didn't do it cos I was told to. Anyway, lo and behold the next morning, I wake up and go to the kitchen, where I see a little bit of tissue. As I go to look at it, mum says 'I found that in our shower this morning!' - and I see there's a white tail spider (dead) nested in the tissue. And of course mum was saying, 'See? I told you! It's dangerous to leave stuff lying on the ground' - without actually saying it. I guess that little spider proved that our house must be totally infested with spiders, just waiting to come out at opportune times like these. Or perhaps they are under the back and call of my parents, just waiting for a chance to prove me wrong. Stupid spider.

Weirdness factor:
rarity: 7 (seeing we only get whitetails about once or twice a year)
awareness: 2 (i'm damn sure my parents were looking out for one the second they mentioned that stuff like that could happen)
control: 9 (the spider came out on its own, despite my own paranoid beliefs)

Total: 18/30

photos

Lately, mum has really been getting into photography, taking photos, and working with Photoshop. Apart from upgrading the old digital camera (5 megapixels) and buying a newer and even bigger one overseas, she's also started taking portraits and doing photoshoots at home, by converting the lougeroom into a studio with a black screen and all. Surprisingly (for me) the results have been quite good, and so some of them have even ended up framed, and are around the house now.

Anyway, the other day I got to thinking why people take photos, and of course, why I do too. When I went travelling, I think the main motivation for me was to have a record of what I did, where I went to, and with who. I've found that it's actually been really difficult to remember many of my previous vacations with my family, and especially those when I was a lot younger. I might remember the names of the places I've been to, or one or two spots or occasions during a trip, but for the most part, I wouldn't have much vivid recollection of what happened. That way, I find that for my latest trip, in taking pretty much as many photos as I possibly could (thank God for digital cameras), that it's much easier to remember the things that happened around those times. I can just flick through the album, remember what happened in the scene, and then the rest of the day would also flow out from my memory eventually. This, I assume, is what happens with most people.

Another reason I had taken photos, was to capture beauty. There were many places that I had visited that may have had an aura of calmness to it, or perhaps it was just that moment when everything seemed right, or that a view was simply stunning. In either case, I think that it is the memory of the feeling of that particular place, or the emotion that it generated, that I had tried to capture. This of course is interpreted by different people looking at the photo in different ways - it'll generally mean less to people who have never been there, especially when looking at a small 4x6 photo in your hand. It just isn't the same as being there - though I guess the art in photography lies in trying to capture all that in this little piece of paper you have.

Another reason still, is purely for the sake of documenting a scene, or taking a shot purely for the information that you can obtain from the picture. When we were walking on some of the bushwalking trails, we encountered the little information boards talking about this and that. At first, we would stop and have a quick read, but after a while, finding this a bit tedious, we thought to take a photo of the board, and read it on the camera later. I guess this would be an example of that (though we never did go back and read them at the time).

The final reason I encountered on my trip was for a trophy. Here, we would find people going up to famous landmarks, doing various poses with various combinations and permutations of the people in the group, and then leave. Of course, I wasn't immune to this either. The annoying thing (as a friend exaperatingly pointed out) were the people there who flocked to these places, ran to the monument, took a few trophy shots, and then left again - all without actually enjoying the place or looking around at anything else. Later, we assumed, they would go back to their friends and family and brag at all the lovely places they've been to - without actually getting to know whether the place was that good or not. It seems rather pointless to do this, and it calls into question what the point of a trip is, but the thing is that this phenomenon didn't seem that rare. Hopefully, we didn't commit these same sorts of atrocities, at least not too much.

learning

I've been reading Netters more and more the last few days, and I've come to realised how good the book actually is. I've also started to regret why I never looked at it in the past, as it would have made things so much less painful.

The key to the ease of learning here are the pictures - they are by far the fastest way to learn, for me. In addition to this, they've also just put in the right amount of detail at each panel, so there isn't too much to digest each time. When the information does start to increase as you progress through the chapter, it also does so by building on previous concepts, and reiterating them. This way it becomes easier to retain, and also allows you to better understand the relationship between the structures, especially the new on the old. Lastly, the order in which things are presented also makes sense, as it examines the bigger picture, before delving in to the details on each section.

In summary, I think I have extracted 4 key learning principles that this book has incorporated into itself.

Firstly, a picture speaks a thousand words. This is especially true in anatomy learning, as in each panel I can immediately map out what I'm seeing and where they are.

Secondly, adding a small number of new ideas each time. I've read that we generally can only absorb 4-5 new ideas easily each time. Of course, I'm sure we could do more, but then it really starts draining the brain - its all about the functional capacity of our working memory - that's just the way we are.

Thirdly, it reiterates. This increases the chance that an item will be stored to a more permanent memory store, and therefore be able to be retained in the future. The other benefit is that by adding new ideas with old, you can fit the new into an established framework of interrelationships.

This leads on to the fourth principle, that of starting with the big picture, before focussing on the small. By doing so, a framework can be established at the start, so you konw generally what is there and what is not. Then by adding in different elements, you can always get a perspective on what they are by going back to the original big view and seeing how it all fits in.

I think from this point on though, there may still be value in reading a text based book like Lasts, but only after I've had an good understanding from Netters first, or perhaps reading them in conjunction. The value in the text based book would be the author's perspective on what specific relationships between the structures are important, which you might have to guess from the atlas. It might also have clinical surgical aspects of the anatomy that may otherwise be missed when learning on your own.

Nadir

My parents went away this monday to wednesday. I had the house and car to myself again. Woo hoo! Organised a LAN at my place, managed to rearrange the furniture in the house and get it back again without my parents noticing. Missed out on pizza, or even getting anything from the shop because we were so caught up that we only realised we should have dinner 15 minutes past midnight - when everything had closed.

Had drinks on wednesday night, with a whole bunch of people I've been meaning to catch up with. There were some others that I hadn't expected, as well as some people who said they would come who didn't. Such is life. The main problem I found was it was difficult to really catch up with individuals, with such a big group of people. There must be some most efficient size of a group of people - but I have yet to work it out yet. Maybe next time, I'll aim for fewer people, and split them up into smaller more managable sizes.

I went out and bought some extra textbooks the other day. The original plan was to buy them this financial year, so I could get some tax reduction thingo, but according to the seminar I attended, I need to be working or at least have my contract first. Oh well. I bought the books cos I felt I should get into gear and start taking initiative on doing some work. My usual plan during semester holidays is to get myself so bored by doing fun stuff that I have nothing else better to do, and get myself the motivation to do some pre-emptive study. I think it is the feeling of being able to do what you want, when you want with no pressures, until you get to the stage where there is nothing left you feel like doing. In this way, I get annoyed when I'm asked to do chores and things around the house which have inevitably built up over the exam period. Parents expect no excuses once you're not busy, but for me I feel like I need to get all the stuff I want to do out of the way first so I feel free. That's why it is the normally the case too where I do more housework spontaneously when my parents are away on holiday.

Just yesterday, I think I finally managed to get to that stage. I had just been diabloing for a while, no-one else was on to play with me either - so I sat looking around my room and stared at the wall. I sighed. I fiddled around for a while,, but nothing really interested me. I looked at my new bookshelf, at the unopened package of Netters. I sighed again. And then I decided to unwrap my book, have a look at it, and then proceded to study. Looks like it wasn't a waste of money after all.

inertia

I went out shopping the other day. I normally find this affair rather tedious and tiresome, and I get rather bored rather quickly. We were running around trying to find a lamp and a bookcase, and so of course one of the places were went through was a furniture shop. In the past, I could only at best view these as a place where I could receive some respite from all the walking and take a seat, but this time it somehow seemed different. Perhaps it was from my plans to move out next year, or my growing forboding sense of increased independence, or even me having played hours of The Sims 2. The thing was this time I had much more interest in what I was seeing - the style, the size, the comfort, (the price) and I started wondering how things might look in a new place I would sometime call my own. And after starting to care, I also started to have more opinions on what I liked and preferred. What would look good? What sort of style would I want? What sort of mood do these items convey? And, I suddenly realised, just how much variation there was out there. Pretty much anything I could dream of, I could have - given the right amount of money of course.

As silly as it seems to me, I have a tendency to go against change. Rationally, I think that is the only way to go about improving the current state, but there is always that feeling of wanting to have things as they are. Why should this be?

I supposed that maybe I was comfortable as I was, and didn't need anything more. That to an extent is true i feel... Why add something when there's nothing wrong? But on the other hand, if you stick by this too much, you may come to a state whereby you follow this idiom because there is something about the change that you may not like. Projecting forward, there will eventually be a point where a change is less harmful than staying as you are. There is a Chinese saying, that goes a short pain is better than a long one - that is, you may as well get it over and done with now, rather than wait, and have to deal with the issue, as well as the anxiety leading up to it.

Is it the fear of failure? If I try, and don't succeed at doing something, does it say something about my character, my worth? I don't know if I do this myself, but I hate it when other people don't try because of this fear. For example, if in a game, they might give in the middle, because they are not doing well. This in effect devalues the worth of the game, for a message that this sends across to the other people is that 'you didn't win because you were good or you tried your best, but only because I didn't try - I let you win'. This of course brings us back to the way we value games in general - what does it mean to win (is it a test of your capability?). Of course, this kind of thinking (I won't try because i'll just fail) falls in one of the features of a depressive - they probably shouldn't be a part of healthy thinking and attitude.

Is it the effort involved? What is the estimate of what I need to do? How accurate is it? If I find that I get to a point where I can't be stuffed - what does it mean? In essense, it may even boil down to - what is the point? Life, living, it is all one big effort. What does it mean to give up trying in the little things?

weirdness factor

I was at home studying with friends the day after watching 2046, walking around in our lounge room, when something caught my eye. Backtracking, and bewildered at what I thought I saw, my gaze eventually rested on what had alerted me. Sitting there, on the shelf, was 2046. My parents must have somehow gotten a copy overseas, but I had never noticed until then. What a waste of money, was my first thought, as the previous day a whole bunch of us had paid $10 each to see the movie. The excuses and ways I tried to soothe myself were that it was a great movie cinematographically, and well worth watching at the cinema. Also, now this would mean I could watch it again and perhaps make more light of the movie and its plot.

Thinking from my previous post (pellagra), I feel I need to elaboate on the idea of the coincidentality. Summarising from what Chi has mentioned, the factors that are important are: rarity, awareness, and degree of control. Perhaps there are more too - this will require more thought.

Rarity is the chance that each event will happen, or even that both will happen within a certain time frame of each other. The rarer the occurrences, the more weird the coincidence will be.

Awareness I think is the presence of a certain idea in your mind, and/or being on the lookout for more of the similar experience once you see the first one. I think one of the arguments I was trying to give in my earlier post was that most of the time things may occur, with equal rarity, but we may see a similarity in one situation but not another - and this is because we are looking for something. Using Chi's example, I'm supposing that there would be a difference in response if you saw a black cat and the stock market crashed, versus you seeing a black cat and the stock market having a boom (and assuming this holds equal chance of occurrence - rarity). In one, people may say that there was more than a coincidence in the first, whilst (even though the chance of occurrence was just as rare) in the second, this connection would go unnoticed. This is essentially because we are looking for something in one, but not the other - awareness.

The third is the amount of control we have over both events. The less in control of the events (or the less we seem in control) the more spooky it is as the outcome wasn't 'artificially' generated by you. Once again, Chi's other example is useful in that Vesna having milk for breakfast is out of your control, whilst you having milk is totally in your control. The less in control, the freakier the coincidence.

Well, with all this in mind, I have come to a plan of categorising any future situations in terms of these 3 factors, perhaps on a scale of 1-10 in each. 10 would be for the most rare, the least aware, and the least in control, in each of the scales respectively. From these, perhaps after addition or multiplication we should be able to come to a 'weirdness' rating for the situation. What application this has, I don't know. But at least we might be able to compare situations and see what really goes on in the world.

Lately, I've noticed what has started to become an annoying behaviour on my part. In the past, this action was always performed automatically and never given any thought, but now I've started to wonder about it. When someone asks me a question, my immediate response is to answer directly and straight away, more so if I'm put under a pressured situation. After reflection on my responses, I find that sometimes being direct is not the best option, nor perhaps even giving an answer. Using questions to the extent to demonstrate you've understood, or perhaps even talking about the issue without actually addressing the specifics of the question are other options amongst many more. As serious as this topic sounds, I'm not intentionally applying it to exam situations and the like - it holds true for social interactions for me. So why after all this time, do I still carrying on the way I do? I think all I need is some more awareness, and practice, and perhaps things will start changing.

The Android

Had a few of my exams last thursday and friday, turned out to be easier than expected. Well, not really, since I didn't really all that much for them. Some of the questions were way fluffier than we've had before though, and I ended up making up several stories in my answers - because that's what they wanted. The art to that is risking enough detail to put in your script to make it sound realistic, but without going overboard so it sounds ridiculous. I think I managed to blend in the right amount of superfluous description, without the examiners wanting to try and base a film on my answer.

Incidentally, someone mentioned that these were the last set of written exams we would have in our undergraduate career. Wow. Of course, I note that these will continue if we wish to pursue further study.

Ended up going out for lunch and dinner on friday after our exams, and also seeing a movie, 2046. I have to admit that I really enjoyed this - apart from just the cinematography, but also the ideas, characters and themes they had in the story. In particular, I felt I could identify with some of the traits and behaviours of some of the characters there. For example, one of the observations the writer in the story made were that some he knew had 'delayed reaction'. There, he was trying to explain why someone acted the way they did. The thing that affected me was that after watching that, and have him point it out, I could also see some similarity in me. Of course, thereafter, I've started to question myself - why do I do it? Am I afraid of making decisions? Is it the interaction that I'm unfamiliar with? Am I scared to show how I feel? As yet, I still don't know, but at least I'm aware of it now. Perhaps next time I will react differently.

Recently, or maybe not so recently, I've noticed a discrepancy in my standards, financially. In some areas, for example with a mobile phone, I might be worried costs and weigh up the choice of phoning versus texting, and whether it is worthwhile going to a computer where I can text for free. On the other hand, I'll go to the pub, buy beer, and not worry about the cost there (well, technically, not entirely true, as I seem to know where the specials are and at what time). But the point still stands: Although I might try and cost save in whatever particular area of spending I'm engaged in, there are still interarea differences in standard of how I value cost and money.

sardonic

(adj.) cruel remark, intended to mock fish.

One more week until exams, and finally I'm starting to feel a bit of the stress? It's only when I get to a time where I estimate I might not be able to fit all the things that I need to read, that I get a sense of urgency. So, in order to relieve this stress, which may potentially reduce my capacity to undergo effective study and learning of concepts, I will go out tonight. And tomorrow.

Lately, there have been a few family issues around (luckily not involving our own), but it has nonetheless drawn my parents into it. Despite the intention of them having a holiday, the latter part of their trip ended up with them trying to resolve other people's issues. So, a few weeks ago, a few days before coming back to Melbourne, they ended up counselling people, doing diplomatic talks, and general political manouvres. The reason for this is probably because they were seen as relative outsiders, with some level of impartialness, as well as their general rationality and people managing skills. So I, fresh out of my psych term, got to thinking - should I teach them anything? Would it be helpful if they got taught CBT, relaxation techniques, or just some general theories of the mind and psychology? I'm sure that there could at least be a bit of use for these tools, if not only to support what they were already doing. The question arises of whether this should be done - or i guess, whether it is ethical to use these techniques on people you know personally. I know at least that I have met some people, or people's parents, with behaviours and attitudes that I disagree with. Is it worthwhile for me to suggest ways in which people around them might go about changing that behaviour? Or perhaps they just need to make those relatives aware of their problem? Or perhaps just talking with them and just saying what they think. Should I, as an outsider, say anything to the person whom I disagree with, on their relative's behalf? Or just for my sake?

pellagra

One of the longest days for perhaps half a year has just elapsed today for me, with a 8am start going through mostly non-stop to 5:30. That translates to 6:30am-7:00pm door to door time. Don't know how much of everything I absorbed. One thing I would like to mention that I did recall though, was talking about patient transfers today. Finally (in our last week) we learnt some practical information about patients, on moving them, and moving them around (as well as getting to play with some one-handed wheelchairs and various walking aids). One of the things mentioned though, was hoists. And the thing I wanted to mention - following on from a previous stem - was that when I got home, I watched a little of the limited TV I watch during a week, and what did they talk about? Hoists.

This time, though, I think that drawing out of this coincidence is bordering on the paranoid (The TV can read my thoughts!), and that now I have gradually moved from bizarrely fated occurances (Scott Wilson) down to this now. I'm sure I've heard of hoists a few times throughout this rotation, and they are certainly not so rare now as to probably not get a mention on TV once in a while.

In the past, there was a certain disease that caused mental difficulties, a sore mouth, and red inflamed roughened skin. Various experiments lead to the discovery of certain food stuffs that could cure it - like milk - and hence it was thought of thereafter as a vitamin deficiency disease, rather than an infectious one. It was found in 1867 that the molecule nicotine, consisting of 2 rings of atoms, could be split up by an acid to form another compound, nicotinic acid (with different properties). Later, it was found that nicotinamide (nicotinic acid plus an amine group) was the specific compound that was the active vitamin essential in curing this disease (and later, too, it was found that nicotinic acid itself could be ingested as the body has the capability to convert it readily to nicotinamide). The problem was, of course, that doctors didn't want the public to get the impression that vitamins could be obtained by smoking (they CAN'T), nor that food stuffs that contained nicotinic acid would be addictive or poisonous, so instead, a shortened abbreviated form of the substance was sought after. From the stems of the words nicotinic, acid, and the ending of vitamin, came the word niacin, which the one we use today.

perfect number

I went over to Chi's last night, intending to study. Though some was done, we of course got sidetracked and ended up watching Big Brother (again) and playing poker (again); I won. As we were watching, it really does seem to me that they (or some at least) were just acting out for the cameras. No doubt producers are happy about that. Though you do come to understand how some people are, and natural personalities do show out eventually, there still is an element of putting on a mask - and so I pondered how much of an affect the outside has on them. Either consciously or sub-consciously, they all know cameras are everywhere; microphones record their every breath. And people are watching them. So I wondered, what would happened once Big Brother for example, came to its 137th series, they've come to their yet-another-houseload level, and there's no more hype, no more glamour, and hardly anyone is watching them? Would they act out the same with that knowledge? Or to take it a step further, what if cameras were placed around the house as they are now, surveillancing continued as it is, but the tapes and recordings destroyed afterwards (and they had knowledge of this of course)? Would that make any difference at all? Is it any different from not watching at all, a normal household of people?

I mentioned before how I had the coincidence with a friend's name. Well, another one has just come along. Last Sunday, I had a barbecue (or sorts) at my place, and Jim, Pete and Chi came around. As they entered, they were in the grasp of their conversation which was around random trivia questions they were posing for each other. At this point, Pete (whose turn it was to be quiz master) mentioned Perfect Numbers - something which I had perhaps heard of in the past (in my long forgotten maths days), but really something which I did not encounter everyday (A perfect number is one where its factors sum up to itself). Then, one day later, as I was reading through my current book, which goes about explaining various words used in science and where they originated from, lo and behold, I came across the explanation of Perfect Numbers. Once again, I was forced to question the chance of encountering an uncommon concept, which I'm not sure I've actually even ever heard before, pop up twice so close temporally. And once again, all I can say is that there can be many factors or excuses, like perhaps I had heard of Perfect Numbers before, but had just forgotten it (unlikely, as I tend to remember simple concepts of interest like that), or that there was a high likelyhood of finding it in a book about scientific vocabulary, or that perhaps I had had a glimpse of the heading on a random opening of the book beforehand, and noticed when Pete mentioned it, rung a bell in my head, picked up on it and asked him to explain more. Well.... shit happens.

Btw, the first 5 perfect numbers, out of curiousity, are 6, 28, 496, 8128, and 33,550,336. At the time of printing, my book says that the 21st on was worked out in 1971, it's twenty-one thousand and three digits long.

Pringle point

Today I attended another (long) team meeting, but luckily this time, some of the food was being passed around to us medical students at the back (good ol' reg). Among the various tim tams, muffins, cookies and biscuits was a tube of pringles. And as my mind was wandering off away from that meeting, I was reminded of my old uni maths class. There, at one of the lessons, we were doing 3D graphs or something, and we had come to a figure with a parabola going up in one direction, and interesecting with this, a parabola going downwards, except with the X axis perpendicular to the orginal curve - the saddle point. Of course, after drawing and mapping this out, I soon realised this figure was the very essense of a pringle, and hence I said as much. (I ended up giving my teacher a small tube of pringles at the end of the year after I graduated high school).

Anyway, after my small reverie, I was watching the team members going about their meeting, and then I soon noticed something strange. One after another, people would go about and eat their pringles, but that everyone was doing the same way. This went on, and almost everyone I saw were eating the pringle a certain way up. The strange thing was, after I analysed how I was doing it (and I think how I normally eat them), I discovered I was doing exactly opposite of the majority. My rationale was to eat them in a way that I thought would conform to my tongue - that is, with the long axis of the pringle facing down (downwards parabola), and the short axis going upwards towards the sides. This way the chip would follow the curve of your tongue as it sloped downwards towards the back of the throat. I pondered this a while, trying to come up with an explanation, but I couldn't come up with any certainties. Was the chip flavoured more on one side? Did they just pick 'em up like that from the bowl? Were they always jsut stacked like that in the tube? I have no idea, but I think my way is still more logical.

Sop refined

I've been pondering more on my previous idea of subjectivity. It seems that interest also holds with subjectivity, and a common way that this is done is through stories. For example, it isn't as interesting if in a conversation I just mention that I did that and I did this, but more so if i mention things that happened, my reactions and my interpretations. I don't it even matters how small a triviality it is, as long as its a story or an easily imagined or visualised account of the events.

And from this, I think that it is not the content of what is said, or the events that transpired, but the way in which it is retold that makes it interesting. The content has to be decriptive enough, but concise enough that you don't blabber on, and interest has to be kept up throughout the story. The chain of events have to be told in the right order, with a logical sequence of events, so that the other person can understand why you did what you did. And finally, the punch line or the point of the story has to be given at the end, perhaps with a lead up to this, and maybe this being up to as long as the whole story itself. I think that this is quite difficult to do perfectly, and so, of course, I don't think I really have that many stories to tell. Of the ones that I do, I usually need to think back on them, and figure out what i want to say, the details to include, and the point of it - this takes a lot of thinking, really. And afer an attempt at giving it, I can always see what happened, what might have gone wrong or right, and see where I could have improved on it. An annoying thing that happens sometimes is that others might start a story or mention something, and then pass it on to you. For example, you might be a group setting and you hear someone mentioning something about what you've done or a story you've given, stuff it up by giving the point, not starting it properly, or just not in the way that you would like it, and then pass it on to you to give the rest. This annoys me, because the person may have hyped it up too much, or they may have given away the point, or maybe just because I'm not prepared and gotten my ideas together before I start. But then, I think the main thing is for me that I don't have enough practice in it, and don't feel I can do it well yet. I think the thing I need to do is to have my eyes out for more happenings, analyse it in the way described above, and then try it out (and improve and remember it for next time).

I've recently had occasion to use my SoP system, but have encountered a few problems with it. I'm not sure whether I mentioned it before, but the numbers derived from it wasn't supposed to be correlated literally with each other, or averaged or summed up in some mathematical fashion. The idea was a situation where perhaps you were the decision maker, and then you could hear the respective sops from everyone else, formulate and calculate this in your head, then make a decision based on what others have given you as their indication of preference. And in this capacity, it has worked really well (if I may say so myself), as I think it streamlined the decision making process.

Now, there are 3 problems that I think arises now. Firstly, what happens if you are faced with more than 2 options? You can't really have a linear scale in this case, with 2 polar extremes. I think what needs to be done now is to split up the different choices, and then give a rating scale, perhaps from 1 to 10, for each of these possibilities. For example, you might say A: sop 3, B: sop 6, C: sop 5. The problem then is how to express this as a single sop? Obviously in this example the preferred option is B, but how can we arrive at net sop? Would it be ok for that person to say B: sop 6 without taking into account the preference of the other sops? It wouldn't really work just to minus the other sops from the winning one (you end up with B: sop -2, which doesn't really indicate that you want to do B). What you really need is something that works out always to be a positive sop in the end. One way I've thought that this might work may be to average out all the 'losing' sops (e.g. (5+3)/2= 4) and subtract this from the 'winning' sop (6-4=2) and hence churn out your net sop. Not sure how this will work, but I'll try to test it out.

Secondly, how do you compare sops once you hear them. How do you correlate a 5 from one person, with a 5 from another. What does it mean? So now, I propose that for the decision maker, or at least the person correllating and synthesising the sops needs to have a weighting system to the sops, depending on who it comes from. For example, if say there was someone in the group that usually you didn't agree with or was deemed to make bad judgements, you might assign a factor of say 0.5 (50%) to their sop. In this way, if the person in the example said their sop was 4 for going shopping, you might then apply the x0.5, and hence you come to a weighted sop of 2. I guess in a sense this can be called a person factor, or opinionation (yours of them).

Thirdly, how does the decision maker combine and intergrate all the sops from all the inputs from different people? Can we leave it to a simple summation process to arrive at the decision? Once again, sops are subjective scales of prefence, so it might be hard to compare. I think so far though, that addition of all the sops for a particular option, and see which one gets the highest sop, might be a solution. This, once again, will need to be tested out... but I'm optimistic that this may work.

mirrored mannerisms

Went out to the New Downunder hotel again last night ($4 crownies! and a chess board). We ended up watching the gratuitous antics of the housemates. It was unnervingly addictive.

Today, we went to have Yum Cha at Shark Fin Inn in Keyborough (highly recommended), and ended seated at a place next to the wall length mirrors on the side of the restaurant. As I was staring at this mirror, and at my self, something that I had pondered came back to me. For my whole life, most of the time I see my face would be in the mirror. Every morning, brushing my teeth, taking a shower, I would be faced with... myself. I'd get used to my own features, my own looks, where everything lies on my face. And this, I realised, was completely different to what other people saw. Your mirrored reflection gives you a left-right reversed image of your features. Though your face might generally be symmetrical, I came to realise that on closer inspection, it isn't. There are subtle differences here and there, freckles, the way you smile, the position of the eyes. Your mental self image is just not the same as what the rest of the world sees. But who is right? Which is the real you? Your real image? I think, it is for this reason, that at times when I look at myself in a photo (one of the times you see yourself from other people's view) that I don't always look right, or feel that its just not me (or that maybe i'm just having a bad hair day). But it is in fact this image that other people see as you.

I generally spend a lot of time watching people, when they speak, when they're listening, when they're walking around the place. It can be funny sometimes when you notice that some people have their own individual repeated mannerisms in movment and speech that they use all the time. Some might have a saying or phrase, some might have a way they walk, or move about, and some might have their own way of greeting people. Most times, these seem normal, at least not out of the ordinary, but at other times, it can just make people look silly. And, of course, I realised, I must have my own little intricacies and mannerisms. Me, I think I nod too much. When different people are being spoken to, they go 'uh huh', 'yep', just stare, or whatever. I just nod. Everytime I'm in that situation, I get this urge to nod, like a high frequency, low amplitude nod, but I feel that's just my way of telling the other person that i'm listening. And then, I realised that this might look ridiculous to others. So, I've recently tried to stop this, or at least nod less often, and tried other ways of acknowledging, like saying 'yep' or something. But of course, these habits are hard to change, and so I guess it will only be with time that I can see what will happen.

SoP

I went into the urodynamics procedure, where they try to work out the reasons why people get urine incontinence. They have various pressure transducers (to work out bladder pressure) and in the process, slowly fill up the bladder with fluid to see what happens, all in the meantime occasionally using Xray imaging to view the outline and filling. At various times, the patient is also asked what they experience, going from a sensation that they could go, to a sensation that there is liquid or fullness there, to feeling full, to being on the point that they really really need to go now. Well, the lady I saw finally got to the last stage, and we could see that her bladder was pretty full on the monitors. At this point, the doctor then asked that she stop holding on and let go (she had an absorbent pad on and around her), but after saying a few times that she really really felt the need to go, she couldn't. We all waited around for a while, but nothing happened. All the while, I watched the little monitor, measuring the volume, go up and up, as the bladder filled up more and more. Still nothing. There was various attempts of coaxing and encouragement from the doctors, including having a running tap in the background, as well dunking her hand in cold water (this was definitely having an effect on me). We finally gave up, gave her a little bell, told her to ring us after she had finished, and then left the room. The bell rang a minute later.

Apparently the woman had had a case of stage fright (quite common actually), and could only finally go after we had. Though I'm not sure that I would have had the same problem, it'd be interesting to find out whether I can save myself some embarassment next time I'm busting to go by imagining that everyone was looking at me and expecting me to go.

I've lately come up with a system of indicating how strongly I feel for a particular situation. I've always had the problem (with some people more than others) where there's a decision to be made, and both I and the other person are or seem ambivalent about what to do. We end up standing around going 'well, whatever you think' or some such and nothing gets done. So, I came up with clarifying how much I preferred a particular option by specifying afterwards how much I cared. For example, if i didn't particularly care where we went for lunch, then I might go 'Lets go to Shanghai Dumpling (again), my strength of preference is 2 (over going to Hungry Jacks (again))', whereas the other person might roll their eyes and reply that they had been to Shanghai Dumpling too many times in the last week. Of course, stating my preference in sentence after every decision might become tedious, and so I shortened it to 'sop' (strength of preference), followed by a number, which represents on a numerical scale how much I preferred one to the other. Imagine a spectrum, with SD 10 on one end, and HJ 10 on the other, for example, with a midpoint of ambivalence (0) in the middle. Well, that's how I imagined it. I'm hoping that in the future this might make certain decision making processes much more efficient if we can communicate our ideas and preferences without so much fiddling with words and expressions.

sidekick

Today, I accompanied a geriatrician for a house visit. Generally got an idea of what happens in a home visit, the assessment, the options for management, the goals, and so and so forth. When it got to finishing the history, I finally did something useful (for once), the Distracting Neuro Exam! As the doctor came to the point where she had all she needed to get from the patient, she got me to take the patient aside and perform various examinations so that she could go and talk with the relatives a bit more privately. So here I was, putting out all sorts of hammers, tissues and things, and tapping and prodding the patient here and there with my little sideline act, without a clue on earth what I was doing (god i need some physical examination practice). Next time I'll have to bring some bananas and a monkey suit.

Yesterday, in the most boring team meeting I've ever had to endure (10/10 pain), I encountered a Dr. Scott Wilson. Now, I had heard of him being around somewhere in the hospitals, but never actually met him. So in the course of the meeting, he walked in, got introduced by the consultant (he himself is reg or something) and that was that. Now, this in itself has no meaning, its just that I had a good friend back in high-school by the same name, and I thought nothing more of it after that. This morning, I boarded my train, got out my book to read, went through a few stops, and then heard someone approaching, calling my name. Of course, who else could it be but Scott Wilson, whom I had only seen on occasion once after 6 years leaving school. We caught up a bit of course, and exchanged numbers and made plans to catch up more in the holidays. Even more strange is that he normally catches that exact train (on my line) from Cheltenham, and that I've never bumped into him before. Now, I could of course say this was in some way 'fate', or at least much more than a coincidence, having both first met Dr. Wilson and Scott one right after the other, when previously I could have met them at any other, earlier times. Why all of a sudden now? But then again, perhaps at having met the Dr. Wilson first, it had got my mind thinking, and hence I was unconsciously looking out for Scottand had recognised him straight away and it has registered in my memory (not the case today, as it was he that approached me, not I him). What I think is likely though, is that if i hadn't bumped into my friend today, I wouldn't have written this down here today. What's more, if I had (and have in the past) encountered something that is out of the ordinary, or that jogs a memory or something, that if I had encountered the same again soon after, that I would then go on to remember this and make something out of it. I would only remember the times where this situation has occurred, and of course, not remember the times where, lo and behold, no co-incidences have occur. Shit happens, and so life goes on.

pain!

I've got this !#$%ing ulcer in my mouth, and its killing me. It's been over a week now, and it still hasn't gone away, and it's in a position right up between my gums where I can't treat it directly either. Everytime I start eating, have a drink, or go brush my teeth, it totally paralyses the left part of my face with pain. Its times like these where I appreciate how comfortable it is when I'm normally healthy, painfree, and it sometimes surprises me how I can so soon and soeasily forget what it's like when it does hurt. I've been taking some Vitamin B (who knows?) this past week, and it's also been interesting for me to see that I've taken the tablet more consistently on the days that it has been worse, or when I get some acute pain. It's truly amazing what a motivational influence pain can be, as I'm sure many people throughout history have known.

careless whipples

Time can never change
The Careless Whipples, of a surgeon...

I'm never gonna drink again,
Can't you see I got no liver
Though it's easy to pretend
you know I'm gonna sue
should've covered up and made amends
by getting me an organ giver
but now you're never gonna cut again
because i'm gonna sue.

Seems like things people come up with (well, at least me), come from discrepancies, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and the like. I've had countless conversations, that have stemmed from something that was said or heard incorrectly, and then my imagination takes over and usually a convoluted story springs forth. For course, this depends a lot on who I'm speaking with, and whether we can feed ideas off each other. I reckon this process is likened to the genetic mutations that are gathered and formed in evolution; the generation of new, original material, more than the sum of the original inputs. Surely this is, or at least one of the ways, people and humanity have formed and do form new ideas. It seems to me that all other things in our life are derived from one thing or the other that we had witnessed or had experience of. We usually just build up new ideas from old ones, but these are not radical - they are fundamental and inevitable conclusions from the originals. (A + B = AB (a different entity, but generally the same). Conversely, I'm proposing that from errors, we can obtain totally different properties and ideas (A + B = pineapple). Though it seems like we can sometimes be in the grip of our past, and our environment, I believe that there are things that can affect and change us that are unpredictable.

jim's party

Haven't done anything this weekend, apart from going to Jim's 23rd last night. It's sometimes seems amazing to me how unstressed I am, seeing that exams are coming up in a few weeks' time. Maybe its just my perception on how easy I think it will be, or something, but it has been a trend with me to leave things at the last minute... hopefully this won't just be another case of that.

I've been annoyed, always have been but more so lately, at people who say things or do things just to get recognition or to show off. After such a comment is made, I normally ponder for a while, analysing the context and content of the deed, just to try and see what the intention was. If it ends up being self-inflatatory, it really starts irratating me. For example, some of the gossip I listen to sometimes seems to be said just so the person saying so can make (or think) themselves like they're really great friends with the person they heard it from, or whom the information concerns, or that they're better because they knew before you, or know more than you. It's as if they're saying, "Oh, didn't you know that? I found out weeks ago. You're not really with it are you?". Even more annoying is when people barge in when a question is asked, right in the middle of when you're giving the answer, or straight after. It all seems to be in an effort to go "Me Me ME! Look at this knowledge I have! Aren't I Good?!". At these times, I usually give up, stop competing in the noisy battle trying to get a word in edgewise, and sit in silence, in great irritation. The most annoying thing is, though, when I catch myself doing the same thing. I've found myself mentioning things, or even repeating comments if I think others haven't heard. Afterwards, I think back to what I've said, and what reasons I could have had for it.. and if it does seem that I've said it for the above reasons, then I feel ashamed and tell myself to be more careful in the future. I just don't see a point in saying something only to make yourself seem better, or more knowledgable, just for the sake of it, without any added value in the information itself.

encounter

I was just walking home today from the station, the time being about 12 midnight (as I often do), all draped and huddled in with my great coat, when I noticed a lady across the road staring at me. She had been walking her dog (god knows why at midnight), and as I approached and completed my crossing, she ask me with with incredulity, "Are you wearing your pajamas?" (with a straight face mind you). I hence proceeded to derobe my outer garment, upon which she said "oh, i guess not" and then walked away.

I've been thinking back on my previous account of humour: people, situations, and ideas. It occurred to me that rendering anything subject, is to make it more moving, triggering emotions and feeling in the individual. This can be in both a positive and a negative way, for although tragic past memories can be stirred to mind with this act of relating, the same can change an fundametally abstract idea to one that we hold dear to our hearts. Thus it seems to me that to draw ideas (and humour) we encounter, to experiences we have had firsthand, is to multiply the power of effect it has on us, for better or worse.

consolidation

After another late night (as one does these RAPP days with little pressing to do) keeping myself warm with a few glasses of preboiled water, I went to bed. I remember dreaming as usual, but toward the end of that dream, feeling the urge to go to the toilet, finding one in the dream, and using it, but not feeling that sense of urgency and fullness go away (and a good thing at that). I was standing there, going and going and going, puzzling away, when it finally occurred to me that I might be dreaming. As soon as I realised that, I got up, and went to the loo. Its a good thing my body can differentiate dream from real life in this circumstance, seeing that its sometimes so hard to distinguish once you're stuck in there.

Had a conversation last night with a friend, and they happened to mistake the word consolidation for consolation (an error I frequently make when I'm not careful). In that time just before I dropped off to sleep, my mind tumbled that word over and over, with the thoughts branching off in all directions, when I came to an idea. I have no idea whether people have already done or tried this, but here it is anyway. In septicaemia, pathogens, usually from a single source like the urinary tract or lungs, grow in number in their location, and then start to disseminate out into the blood stream. Soon, they start taking over here, causing a major life threatening situation for the person. What if, there were some way (through chemokines and the such) we could introduce a homing beacon of some sort, in a place that was easily assessible (say, close to the skin) and 'collect' the pathogen at that spot. Here, they could either be destroyed locally, or at least filtered from the bloodstream to at least limit the production and numbers there. In this way, we could round up and 'cull' the invaders, perhaps even to the extent of 'persuading' the ones from the primary source to travel out from their locale and hence treat the cause too. But of course, this is just an idea; perhaps I can make some use of it some time in the future.

Austin Interview

Had my last interview today. Yay. Took me 2.5 CDs to get me there and back from the Northern. Maybe I should be putting Austin down lower on my list.

I was feeling bored last weekend, with nothing urgent left to do, and so I pulled out some of my old piano music and started playing through them. I found some of my old Bach baroque pieces and although I couldn't quite play them to sound quite right, I really got into them. Now all week, I've had those little melodies and countermelodies pop up all the time, when I'm daydreaming, driving, just walking around, and even when I'm in that state just before I get up when i'm not quite awake. Today, I just had to pull out those pieces again and go through them again. The only problem is that I feel I need baroque pieces, more modulating voices, countermelodies, themes, canons - and I have some, but I can't play them well enough to satify my need. I think it's some sort of orderly mathematical clockwork-like quality to that style that appeals to me, which is what I'm after. I need to buy some CDs.

Got a call yesterday from an old school friend, asking that I help out with his girlfriend's exam or some such next week - Vocal. The problem lies not in my will, but my ability, as I have seriously forgotten whence it was last I practiced. I feel that if I can't do it well (especially seeing its for exams), then its best that someone else should do it. The other problem is that there may not be others, or that others may be even worse than me. So, in the meantime, I've pulled out the old Hanon studies and warmed my fingers up in anticipation. I've forgotten how sore they can get after practice.

Humour

Had a tutorial about humour yesterday, and it brought to light the way it can be used, especially in a negative manner. In particular, it focused on situation where a patient might be talked about or joked about, and the morality of this. On the one hand, there's the issue of confidentiality and respecting patients, whilst on the other, it can be seen to be a method of stress relief for example. It was also interesting to note that students tended to side with the patients more (when they were at the brunt of a joke). Apart from the fact that medical students were also usually the target of jokes, I think the comraderie between patients and students lies in knowledge. Both are on the bottom of the ladder, with little knowledge on what's going on, what will happen next, and so on. With this is a sense of helplessness and lack of power - they are both at the mercy of the superiors above them. Let us hope that once I reach a level where there are those below me that I don't forget what it was like to feel helpless at the bottom.

Another focus in the session was that of 'safe' humour, and of all the things spoken of, the only one that was, was humour about one's self. Sex, politics, religion, and that about others (especially a disability) were out of the picture, and even that of events and situations were inconsistent. Here, you would need to know a least some of the background of your audience to be able to make sure you don't offend. This subject got me to thinking of the idea I had heard somewhere in the past about a hierarchy of conversation. The three things were: talking about people (gossip), situations, and ideas; this being in order from lowest to highest. I don't think necessarily that this was referring to a 'goodness' or 'badness' rating, but perhaps more of a abstractness and requirement for thought as one moved up. In any case, I got to thinking, and the conclusion I reached was also that the more objective you got, the 'safer' it was. The example above of humour about situations could be dangerous, as the obejctive idea of a situation could refer to a subjective situation that someone else might have had, which then might cause offense. So the thing being the least subjective, with the least chance to be able to refer to anyone in particular, ideas, should in theory be the safest for use in humour. This, of course, I cannot be sure of but I will try to look out in the future now and see if I can find any examples where humour about ideas has failed.

Western Interview

Another day, another interview. Seemed to go better than yesterdays' one, at least it went on for longer than 5 minutes this time. I probably felt more comfortable with the more conversational tone of the interview, as well as not having to sit behind a 3 metre wide board table with the interviewers staring across at me from another postcode.

Had some talk today on a hospital's computer system, and how they're all starting to link up now throughout the state, and eventually, Australia. I've been thinking for a long time now how the whole system seems to be all jumbled up, with no integration at all. Everyone just does their own thing, and leaves others to pick up what-ever pieces they can. I even got to thinking I should design my own hospital and health system to ensure everyone knows what everyone else is doing, has done, and where to find everything. But after today's talk, I started thinking maybe things are not so bad after all, or at least there are people in the network that are actively working and striving towards an end that's similar to what I envisioned. I will have to wait and see what it's like once I start working, as I can't really judge how good or bad things are at the moment.

Dad just walked in then (he's back from his trip now) and mentioned to me how China's recently formed a depart or something within the hospital/health system: specifically to combat the growing problem of computer addiction in children. The symptom is that they get violent when taken away from the computers, and lash out at parents. The treatment they are looking at is, of course, medication. Maybe I need some too.

The Beginning of Nothing

Recovering from the depths of apathy, I launch myself into a frenzy of activity, only to reel back once again after the crisis is over. Things are the same as they were once more.

Or are they.....?