Fitbook

This post will be a short one since it is early in the morning and I have to get ready for class soon. You may have noticed that I haven't posted anything in the past few days. While you should not expect such frequent posts, there is a reason I have been absent from many of my standard internet haunts this week. Ironically, the reason is a website. On Tuesday, a friend sent me an invitation to join fitocracy.com, A social networking site with an odd focus. Imagine facebook. You have a profile, friends, groups, interests, the whole nine yards. Now add in the ability to easily input information regarding your work outs. As if this weren't enough, when you hit "Post" the website assigns you points based on what activities you did and for how long. And to go one step further, you are able to level up, achieve quests, and unlock achievements with your points.

I never would have thought that arbitrary points could be such a strong motivator, but they are. For the past few days, my girlfriend and I have been running around campus, going to the gym, and doing crunches/push up/countless other exercises while watching TV. The reason I decided to comment on this website is because of the profound motivational impact it has had on us. There is no telling if this effect will last, but even if it doesn't the intent of the website is admirable. Rather than being the time-sink that most social networking sites are as they encourage you to click one more profile or read one more article, Fitocracy has encouraged me to leave the computer and head out get my heart rate up. In fact, each moment I spend on the website is a moment I'm not spending getting points.

The social networking movement has many benefits in terms of connectivity and sharing information but the one thing I have always resented about it is how self-perpetuating it is. I can't hold that against the creators of these websites because they have found a way to resoundingly achieve what every website developer wants, constant use. I can, however, commend the people in charge of Fitocracy. Here is a website that offers most of the benefits of the bigger networking sites while keeping its focus on encouraging healthy active living. The website is still in beta but offers connections to Facebook and Twitter. Once they iron out the few glitches I've noticed (slow loading times, missing links, out of place posts, etc) and launch a polished version I wouldn't be surprised if the creators become fast-track millionaires (assuming it isn't already Zuckerberg behind this). I wish them all the best and I strongly encourage you to check out the site and sign up. I've had a lot of fun with it so far, and I feel physically better, too. It's the purest win-win I've found in a long time.

Happy Trails,

-Steve

Image courtesy of http://www.youthcancertrust.org/fundraising-challenges/running-.aspx

Fun With Stereotypes

This morning, as I cruised Facebook for some fun articles to read, I was directed towards an interesting piece of writing on the Fox News site that got me thinking. As much as that is the opposite intention of most reporting done by that oh-so-biased conglomerate, occasionally they raise intriguing, if unintended, questions. The article itself was called 5 Feminist Demands She Wants You to Ignore and I decided to read it out of my morbid fascination with gender relations and the train-wrecks that so often ensue.

The tone of the article is pretty unforgivable. Clearly the author was aware of that, hence his decision to remain anonymous; but we shouldn't expect much more from Fox News, as their general mission statement is to stir the pot, fire people up, and distract them from what really matters. (Uh oh, this blog means I'm not writing about world hunger or the HIV vaccine... Well played, Fox News.) However, as flagrant and appalling as the sexism in the article is, its content is resoundingly dull. It says nothing that a small measure of common sense and dating experience couldn't tell you; but the fact that it was shared on Facebook implies that it struck a chord with some people. In this particular case, outrage is fully justified and I am on board with the sentiment that articles of this calibre have no place in the mass media, no matter how uncredible the organization presenting them.

The question that the article raised, at least in my mind, was one of how to approach writing about dating advice without coming off as at least a little sexist. It would be willfully naive of us to suggest that the sexes shouldn't be treated as unique. Just as each individual within a group is different, groups themselves often have different expectations in different contexts. This is where my fellow social psychologists could jump in and point out that the differences between individuals completely whitewash the differences between them, and the point is fair; but the de facto situation is that, in most cases, all other things being equal, you do not interact with men and women in exactly the same way. This is especially the case in dating.

Clearly we do not live in the 1950's. I am in no way suggesting that the Mad Men standard of gender relations should continue to apply. All I am saying is that there are certain elements of that standard that can be displayed in a modern relationship without jeopardizing the equality of each partner. I will avoid speaking for women because, for obvious reasons, I have no first-hand experience with what they really enjoy. Speaking from my own perspective, though, I like slipping into the suave and debonair stereotype of a man taking a woman out for a night on the town, if you'll pardon the clichéd turn of phrase. It probably has something to do with how clumsy and unmethodical I am in my day-to-day life, but on the exceedingly rare occasions when pull off a James Bond-esque level of competence while out with my girlfriend, I feel pretty good about myself.

I also don't think I am entirely off-base when I suggest that modern women might be able to reap some enjoyment from successful attempts to impress them. Who doesn't like to be doted upon, within reason? I love it when I am treated as if I am important to someone else. It seems to me a pretty basic part of the human condition is to take pleasure out of other people putting you on a pedestal, so long as don't harbour unrealistic expectations. Once in a while its fun to pretend that someone is perfect.

The key is balance, and in a lot of ways, that is what the original article seemed to be advocating. It's very fair and diplomatic to split the bill when you go out to dinner, but it's also fun to treat each-other once in a while. You need to acknowledge that women are fully capable of carrying their own bags and opening their own doors, but it's kind of nice to show that you are willing to be of service.

All too often in our uber politically-correct world we run the risk of offending someone by undermining their equality or unintentionally patronizing them in some way, but their needs to be some room for chivalry. Many people I know, myself included, romanticize the early half of the 20th century because is seems like a more care-free time. Everyone realizes that we are oversimplifying and that the way time periods are depicted on TV is no indication of what it would be actually be like to live through them. It is also patently obvious that, until a real-life Doc Brown comes along in a suped-up Delorian, no one is going to be able to fully disprove the notion that decades past weren't a little bit more romantic than now. What I suggest is that it's okay to take the positive, romantic aspects that make up our view of the past and pretend that things actually are that way. Let's treat each other with the dignity and admiration that our black-and-white brethren encourage of us and not read too much into it, because life is stressful enough when we only concern ourselves with actual affronts to equality.

Cheers,

Steve

Image courtesy of: http://menandwomen101.com/chivalry.html

Second Opinion

One thing that I have never been fully able to wrap my head around is the aversion some people have to rereading books. In my personal experience, many of the people I know who read on a regular basis are happy to fly through a good book once, drop it off at the library and be done with it. I suppose if you are a fan of fiction you can get away with this. There are plenty of movies that I've seen once, enjoyed, and have no strong urge to see again. Unfortunately for me, my tastes lead me more often to non-fiction and the onslaught of facts that usually brings.

The problem with non-fiction is that, no matter how interested you are in the subject, no matter how diligently you read and reread passages, some of the information goes the way of Larry David's hair. That is to say, it falls out of your head. Recently it occured to me that one of my classes this semester will focus on the subject of a book that I tried reading a few years ago, Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert. My first time through the book I have to admit, I wasn't all that interested. The subject matter is largely based on social psych studies and I had just come off four solid years of focusing on nothing but that. Needless to say, I shelved the book two thirds of the way through.

Reading the book over the past few days, however, has left me thoroughly enthralled. The findings are still familiar but the connections I am drawing are novel and interesting. Having learned more about evolution, ecology, economics, and environmentalism since my first attempt, I am seeing the information with new eyes. I am linking the concepts it presents to things I wasn't even aware of when I bought the book.

It really makes me wonder what I could draw from rereading the other books on my shelf. I reread my favourites often enough, but who is to say that books I was unimpressed with the first time around wouldn't offer more at this stage of my ongoing education?

I think we would all benefit from giving information a second look a little more often. As we grow older and learn more, our perspectives change. Information that seemed unimportant a few years ago might be life-changing now. It is important to recognize how much we grow as people based on the things we learn, and giving books a second look is the best method I can think of for staying open-minded and as informed as possible. Bookshelves are not trophy cases, they are meant to be points of reference that we can look back on as we form new opinions and rework old ideas.

I encourage you, avid reader, to reconsider some knowledge you might have glossed over in the past. Especially things that turned out to be less interesting than you expected. You might be impressed with what you find buried behind those old encyclopaedias... Does anyone still have encyclopaedias?

-Steve

Image courtesy of: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nerdnest/4367429896/

Ever-Quest

Well the new year is here and we all know what that means... Resolutions! The idea has somewhat lost its meaning in the traditional sense, mainly because it has become exactly that. A tradition. When you do something year-in, year-out without giving it much thought it either becomes a cherished part of your life or it withers into a token gesture against what it once was. 

To try and avoid my resolutions becoming something in the back of my head that nags at me without ever spurring me to action, I try to stay creative. Last year I didn't really make any goals for myself. I had just completed a year long quest to go on one adventure each month for the entire year and I felt that my success had warranted a year of doing whatever I wanted. The end result was an even more adventurous year than the preceding one. The lesson there is that resolutions have a way of ingraining themselves into your life if you keep up with them for long enough. 

I guess that's the point. You choose something you want to be a part of who you are and you do it for so long that it becomes second nature. Now that I am living in BC and have ready access to mountains there is something I would like to try. In the true spirit of adventure and outdoorsiness, and inspired by the 12 year-old inside me who never quite learned how to give up on his dreams, my new year's resolution is to climb the equivalent height of Mount Everest. 

Granted, it won't be in one go. It couldn't possibly be, considering that Everest itself is a solid 30% taller than the highest mountain in North America, but climbing it in pieces seems like a safe and fun way to make mountaineering more of a fixture in my life. From the hilltop on which I live, on a clear day, I can see at least one peak over 10,000 feet/3,048 meters so that will make up a big chunk of the Everest goal. The rest will be filled in by the smaller 5,000-8,000 foot (1,524 - 2,438 meter) peaks with countless hiking trails that criss-cross the lower mainland.

I'm sure I will have help in achieving this goal from my Ontario friends who have vowed to come visit and from my new friends here in BC. One thing I know for sure is that even if I fail, I'll have one hell of a good time trying. Mount Everest is officially 29,028 feet/8,848 meters tall, so I certainly have my work cut out for me, but in my experience I have found that the loftiest goals are the one's that are the most worth achieving. 

Best of luck to you and yours in 2012.

-Steve