Why Do We Get Invested?

So...in an hour and a thirty-seven minutes, the greatest show on television comes to an end. (Please don't contest this point for a few months - I'm getting a bit choked up right now.)
After nine seasons, How I Met Your Mother, starring Josh Radnor, Cobie Smulders, Neil Patrick Harris, Jason Segel and Alison Hannigan, is finally ending. And...well, I'm not sure if I'm coping very well. I've been watching this show for a full five years, and as much as I want to see the conclusion, I don't want the show to end. First and foremost, I don't know what I'm going to do with my Monday nights from here on out. Secondly and almost as importantly, I don't know how the show is going to end. Hopefully, it will conclude with, as the title suggests, the main character meeting his future wife. But the writers have thrown us curveballs before. For example, Segel's character's father, a lovable secondary character, dies unexpectedly during the sixth season (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-8Dy_Q4zkE&feature=youtu.be), and NPH's character has some pretty heart-wrenching scenes with his own father, who was absent for his whole life (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmeMbelaZGk). If you don't know the show...this is a sitcom. And there is evidence to suggest that the titular Mother may in fact die before the series officially ends. The theory is that Radnor's character, Ted, is telling his children the story of how he met their mother (and leaves in a lot of details you wouldn't normally tell your kids) because the mother is dead or dying. We'll see.
So, why do I care so much? Why does anybody actually care about fictional characters? Well, I have my own theory about that, though it's probably most of the world's theory as well: I think we care about fictional characters because we relate to them, consciously or subconsciously. When you first see a movie or a T.V. show, there's always at least one character you can relate to. In the case of How I Met Your Mother, I can relate to four of the five main characters. After a while, you get emotionally attached to these characters. And after five years, they've practically become my friends. Watching Radnor's character meet the mother is going to be like watching a friend get married for me. And if the mother (played by Broadway actress Cristin Milioti and introduced to the audience last year) dies, it'll be as though you lost one of your friends. God forbid, if anything should happen to one of the main characters...well, I'll be inconsolable, that's for sure.
Well...the countdown continues. Wish me luck out there, and best of luck to those of you who will be watching. Hopefully I'll/we'll be in a position to continue my/our homework by 10 P.M. tonight.

Standardized Testing

This morning, at about 6:02 A.M., I was at my computer. Which is a strange thing, because at that point in the morning, I'm usually in bed, ignoring my alarm. But today was different: the March S.A.T. scores came out today. Granted, the S.A.T. and it's rigors are inflated to seem worse than they are...but not by much. But the questions are actually rather simple; they're just worded in a confusing way, as are the answers. All and all, the test isn't so much about your knowledge (though studying the topics certainly helps a great deal) as it is about reading. You have to be able to discern what the questions are asking you, and if you can't, knowing the subject matter isn't all that important.

Fortunately, reading confusing questions is something I do rather well. And to be perfectly honest, the S.A.T. is one of the more enjoyable tests I've ever taken. As I said to Jess the other day, I get a sense of accomplishment every time I figure out a question that took a paragraph to ask me to find an angle, or figure out just how those authors used strategies in their writing. It's fulfilling, in a very odd way. And besides, the passages they have you read are usually decent enough, and the people in the grammatically-incorrect statements often lead interesting lives (that looks like sarcasm when it's in text, but it isn't). If you have a thorough knowledge of the material and know how to read the questions, you'll get a good score. As for me...well, my goal was to beat my far-from-foolhardy sister. Mission accomplished.

Big Think: The "Invisibility Cloak"

Oh, Big Think...you've let me down.
http://bigthink.com/big-think-tv/are-we-closer-to-building-an-invisibility-cloak
The article asks, "Are we getting closer to building an invisibility cloak?" It then goes on to suggest that it does, when all the evidence it gives screams, "HELL NO!" Apparently, Duke University has created some sort of an "acoustic cloak," but what on this earth does this mean? The video the article provides us with gives absolutely no clear idea as to what this is. And since the article mentions research done by Duke University, you'd think that they'd give you a bit of that research, right? Well, apparently Big Think has been having an off-day, because the only source here is the Huffington Post, the articles of which are about as reliable as those of The Onion. What's even better, the author only gives four concise sentences from this article, which is linked to. Click the link, and you get the full article, which claims that sound waves make the object invisible to the naked eye. Click another link, and you get to a site called LiveScience with the same video present in the article, which is less than useless, but this one is useful - because the description states that this "acoustic cloak" is meant to shield an object from SONAR. So yes, it's an invisibility cloak, the same way an F-22 Raptor is an invisible plane. In other words, it isn't invisible, and there's no evidence to suggest that this could ever be used to create an "invisibility cloak."

The End of Childhood

I doubt anybody reading this would consider his or herself a child. Frankly, most of us have rejected the notion that we were still kids since the fifth grade. But I'd bet money that, for many of my fellow STACies, the fact that we've lost touch with our younger selves isn't quite real yet. I'm saying this because it only just dawned on me now.

While rooting through my little brother's closet in search for a tie I'd lost (side note: my bedroom is the attic of my house, and I don't have my own closet), I found a little beanbag turtle. I recognized it right away - it was my favorite toy for the first six years of my life. I'm not kidding - if you ever break into my house and look through my family's photo albums (which would say a lot about who you are as a person), you would see this turtle in at least three-quarters of the pictures of me. I recognized it right away, all right - but it's been at least six or seven years since the toy has so much as crossed my mind, and I can't even remember it's name. And that hit a bit closer to home than I would have thought. I mean, I haven't seen the thing in almost a decade. Third-grade Brian probably hid it under the dresser in what was, at the time, his/my closet so that his/my mother wouldn't be able to donate it to charity. (Third-grade Brian was a lot more sentimental than the current version is.) And a combination of time and a lack of interest in photo albums drove the turtle from my memory. And here I am, nine years later, unable to remember the name of a toy that took part in some of my earliest memories. And I'm getting a little choked up right now. (It's not just because of this - I'm doing some pretty depressing scriptwriting right now.) I guess this is it - I'm officially not a kid any more. 

So here's my theory: at some point, after an adolescent starts to deny that they are a child, they cease to be a child without truly realizing it. And at some point, a factor will arise - maybe an old TV show you catch a glimpse of while flipping channels, maybe a picture book your parents are finally donating, or maybe an old toy you haven't thought about in years - that makes the adolescent realize that, the last time they told a parent that they weren't a child anymore, they were actually right. 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to scour the Internet in search of clues as to what this turtle's name might be.

Big Think: The Nature of Fear

We all know about fear. Heck, most of us probably feel it on a daily basis. But our ancestors would probably have scoffed at what we fear, which for many of us includes math tests and losing a cell phone: they had to deal with tests of strength, in the form of war, and risked losing their lives. But fear is hard-wired in us all, a point noted in this article from Big Think: 

http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/we-fear-first-and-think-second-and-we-fear-more-and-think-less

What's interesting about this article is the fact that it mentions how we perceive fear in different ways when the context of the source of that fear is changed. The article uses the example of vaccines, and how people are more afraid of vaccinating their children than they are of vaccinating themselves. It explains how such a "Perception gap" can put oneself, and others, at risk. It's a toughen-up sort of message, telling the audience that it can be better to take the risk just to reap the reward. It also states that the context of the event that causes fear is important in how afraid you become - for example, if you submit to something voluntarily, you'll be less frightened than you would be if that same something were out of your control, or forced on you. It also mentions that familiarity with something can lessen the fear you fear, and a lack of familiarity can make an experience all the more terrifying. It also helps explain some of the more irrational fears people have about events beyond their control, such as natural disasters and military conflicts. Hey, Russia might nuke us tomorrow. It's a terrifying prospect, really, but why? It's almost positively not going to happen. The idea that your reaction to fear depends upon your personality is questionable, though, because down deep, all human beings respond to fear in different ways. It doesn't matter if you're introverted or extroverted - in the end, you'll still be running and screaming.

Big Think: The Morality of Zoos

So today on Big Think, I found a post discussing an interesting animal rights question: http://bigthink.com/against-the-new-taboo/is-animal-captivity-wrong
The primary argument against zoos is that they restrict the natural freedoms that animals have in the wild, namely freedom to as much land as they can find as opposed to a small enclosure or cage. People who find zoos cruel often ask, "Would you like to be in that animal's position?" Well, to that I would reply that it would have to depend on the zoo. Because most zoos provide animals with a suitable habitat, sufficient food and water, a place to sleep, and an overall safe environment. As the article points out, zoo animals don't have to deal with the threats posed by predators, or other animals who may wish to take over their territory. Granted, some zoos don't provide suitable conditions, and some go over the line (that means you, Denmark). But many zoos - including those of the New York area - provide a perfect place for the species to live. And frankly, it doesn't make sense to try and impose human qualities on an animal. You might feel bad for the herd of zebras restricted to the half-acre of land that composes their habitat. But those zebras will never have to walk miles a day to find a water source, nor will they want for food during droughts, nor will they have to deal with the threats posed by hyenas, big cats and wild dogs. They're much less likely to die of disease than their wild cousins are, and they will live longer, more comfortable lives. If you gave those zebras human intelligence and showed them how their African kindred lived, most of them would probably opt for the safety and steady supply of food and water, rather than the dangerous, ever-changing savannas. It's like how most Americans feel about the TSA: you might not like it, per se, but you'd much rather go through security than risk a terrorist attack on your flight.

My First 365

In STAC, we've started a new project that involves each individual STACie starting their own 365. For the one person out there who doesn't know what a 365 is, it's a daily practice involving something that you like. Since I've been doing a bit of writing recently, and a good deal of that writing will involve a language that does not quite exist, I've decided to start creating that language! For the daily practice aspect, I intend to do between ten and twenty words a day, making sure that they all correspond to certain ground rules I've been laying out.

Ground Rules:
-The language has a Celtic base, and the pronunciation will be affected
-The letters J, Q, W, X and Z do not exist in this language
-When two verbs are used consecutively in a sentence, they become one word in the most convenient way possible
-When a noun is converted to an adjective, the suffix -i is added.
-To signify that an object or person is from a certain place, the suffix -ach is added. (Example: English would become Englandach)*
-To signify past tense, the suffix -iar is added to verbs, with some exceptions.*
-To signify plurality, the suffix -ith is added*
-To signify an adverb, the suffix -ilin is added*
*When the word in question ends with a vowel, an "n" proceeds the suffix.

Steps:
1) I found a suitable list of words, many of which are likely to come up in my writing. (http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/oxford3000/)

2) Select an appropriate means of translation for a base language. A dictionary works best, but in a pinch, Google Translate will suffice. After all, I'm not translating.

3) Translate your words into that language. You now have your base word.

4) Account for differences between your base word and the language you will be using. For example, my base language is Irish Gaelic, which lacks the letters J, K, Q, W, X, Y and Z. As a result, I'm going to be adding in K's and Y's to some of my words (where it makes sense).

5) Change different aspects of your base word. Rearrange the elements, add (or remove) an accent mark to alter the inflection, and change out as many letters as you want. You don't want it to look too similar to it's original source, especially if it's a longer word.

Let's see how it works, shall we?
Word 1: A
-Gaelic Translation: Sa
-Final Product: Sór
That wasn't much fun, was it? Let's try a longer word.
Word 2: Abandon
-Gaelic Translation: Thréigean
This is something you can work with!
-Final Product: Tréalcain

Well, here I go! Wish me luck!

Ethno-Linguistic Analysis: The Celts

The Celts have some pretty rotten luck. Almost undisputedly, they had the worst luck of any European ethnic group. Why? Well, the Celts once held most of Europe, save for most of Germany, Poland, the Baltic Nations, Scandinavia, and southern Italy. There were Celts in Portugal, and in Switzerland, and in Turkey. But by the year 500 A.D., the only civilizations that identified themselves as Celtic were in Ireland and Scotland. What happened? Well, two things happened: the Roman Empire and the Germanic tribes. Between the two of them, they effectively stamped out Celtic culture, either through assimilation or slaughter. The eastern Celts are basically extinct. Nobody really knows what happened to them, but I would infer that the Visigoths had something to do with it. Unlike the Germans, the Celts weren't so closely related, and Celtic culture and language, rather than ethnicity, defined a man as a Celt. However, it has been hypothesized that most of the Celts descended from the Hallstatt people, who originated in Austria.

The Gauls
Origin: France
Modern Descendants: Present in France
The Gauls represent the Celtic luck perfectly. They started out as, well, Celts, loving things like war, pillage, headhunting and human sacrifice. (Give it up for my ancestors, everybody.) The Gauls were powerful enough to sack the young Roman Republic. The Romans never forgot the Gaul's conquest, and they especially remembered the fact that the Gauls asked for a mere thousand pounds of gold in exchange for the Republic's sovereignty. As if Rome were only worth a thousand pounds of gold! As you should all know, a guy named Caesar led Rome into Gaul. A young leader named Vercingetorix tried to fight, but eventually retreated into the holdfast of Alesia to wait for reinforcements. Long story short - Rome beat the reinforcements, the Celts lost Gaul, the Gauls lost their Celtic identity, and Vercingetorix lost his head. When the Romans pulled out of Gaul, it wasn't long before the Germanic Franks came in and gave the Romanized Celts a new Frankish identity and new Frankish children.

The Britons
Origin: Southern Great Britain
Modern Descendants: Welsh; Present in England
The story of the Britons is parallel to the story of the Gauls, in that the Celtic peoples tried - and failed - to fight off the encroaching Roman legions. They lost because the Romans bought off their leaders with some persuasion in the form of war elephants. Much as the Gauls had, the Britons were Romanized - with the exception of a western corner of Great Britain. The hilly terrain of the lands now known as Wales served the Britons well, and they were able to beat off the Romans long enough to keep their culture intact. Wales would later hold out against the Anglo-Saxons, and would not fall until the stirrup-armed English Normans came knocking. Many Britons may have kept the Brythonic language (almost identical to Welsh), but it doesn't seem to matter whether that number was ninety percent of the population or nine individuals outside of Wales - the Anglo-Saxons would change all of that. The loss of Celtic identity of the Britons of England was completed long before the Normans arrived from their holdfasts in France.

The Picts
Origin: Scotland
Modern Descendants: Present in Scotland
The only Celtic peoples that remained wholly unconquered by Rome, the Picts were so terrifying that they inspired the construction of Hadrian's Wall, an incredibly advanced structure for its day. Although their origins were undoubtedly similar to those of the Britons, they spoke a slightly different language and practiced a slightly different religion. The Picts must have been disgusted by their cousins' lack of resistance against the Romans, because they attacked often. The Picts, ironically enough, would not be conquered by Romans, or by Saxons, or even by the Normans; they would be conquered by another group of Celts.

The Gaels
Origin: Iberia
Modern Descendants: Irish; Present in Scotland, Spain, Portugal
The only Celts whose identity survived to the middle ages were the Gaels, and even that was only in part of their range. In their native Iberia, the Gaels met a similar fate to their Gallic and Brythonic cousins - Romanization and a loss of Celtic identity. However, Iberia was not the only Gaelic stronghold; in the first or second millennium B.C. (there are no real records from this time), a group of Gaels arrived on an island about four hundred miles due north of their homeland. The Gaels took Ireland from the native Celts by force. It's possible they assimilated these other Celts into Gaelic culture; its just as likely that they took it upon themselves to kill off their weaker cousins. Only Christianity (which was spread, in Celtic fashion, through military means) prevented the Scoti, a tribe from the north of Ireland, from wiping out the Picts when they invaded the lands they would give their name. Up until the sixteenth century, any invading force was restricted to a small area (the English), forced out entirely, or assimilated into the rest of the population. But the countless invasions of Ireland and Scotland took their toll on the people, and both would fall to England.

Ethno-Linguistic Analysis: Germans

If any of you have seen my VLogs, you know that I've been doing some research for a new bit of writing I've been doing. A lot of this research involves the post-classical European world as it was in the sixth and seventh centuries A.D., focusing on the peoples living in the North and West of the continent. Two major ethno-linguistic groups (peoples sharing a similar language and ethnic background) dominated this part of Europe at the time: the Germans (Germanic) and the Celts (Celtic). For these posts, I'm going to be identifying characteristics of these peoples, their societies, and some of the more notable groups that sprung from them.

The Germans
Origin: Germany
Modern Descendants: Germans, Austrians, and German Swiss; present in Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland
Note: For this section, "Germans" refers to the Germanic peoples who lived in and near modern Germany. For all sections, "present" refers to a significant component of a given group in a population. For example, many in the Czech Republic have German blood.
The first Germanic languages originated in the land we now know as Germany. But there was no concept of the German people, except to the Romans - the Germans lived in semi-nomadic tribes who made a living through a mix of agriculture and pillage. Warlike, though not so warlike as some other European peoples, the Germans valued strength and turned to military leaders to rule their people. The Germans can claim credit for the sack of Rome and a pantheon of gods. After Rome fell, though, they eventually adopted Christianity. That by no means unified them, though.

The Franks
Origin: Western Germany
Modern Descendants: Present in France
When the Romans pulled out of the lands we now know as France, the people who gave the country its name moved in from across the Rhone. The Franks had little trouble establishing kingdoms, as the once-warlike natives, the Gallic (Celtic) peoples, had long since been Romanized. (Wait - Roman, Romantic...there must be some relation there.) The Franks adopted the Latin the Gauls spoke, adding in elements of their own Germanic tongue to form a language similar to the French we know today. The Franks staked their claim in history at the battle of Tours, when Charles Martel repelled a burgeoning Muslim Spain's attempt to advance its territory, and cemented that claim when Martel's grandson Charlemagne became the first Holy Roman Emperor.

The Anglo-Saxons
Origin: Denmark (Angles), Northern Germany (Saxons)
Modern Descendants: Present in England
When Rome's rule in Britain fell, things weren't hunky-dory. Rival kings rose and fell with the seasons, fighting each other and the as-yet-unconquered Picts. Some of those kings called for mercenaries from Denmark and Saxony to fight their battles for them. But the Angles and the Saxons had an appetite for wealth the British kings could not satisfy. When their employers could not pay them sufficiently for their services, the Angles and the Saxons would usurp their lands. Soon, raiders from those mercenaries' tribes came with an intent to settle. In some places, they coexisted peacefully with the native Britons; the Britons tended to adopt Anglo-Saxon culture and language, and often intermarried with the would-be invaders. In other places, however, specifically northeastern England, the transition was less smooth: raiders slaughtered local peoples en masse. The Angles would lend the part of Britain they helped conquer their name (Angle-Land became England), and the descendents of these Anglo-Saxons would rule over modern-day England until another Germanic people overthrew their regime.

The Norse
Origin: Scandinavia
Modern Descendants: Scandinavians; Present in France, Britain, Ireland
No people inspired terror as the vikings did. Their nickname literally meant "Raider." The Norse gods were perhaps the most bloodthirsty gods of Europe, demanding appeasement through conquest and battle. The vikings were only too happy to oblige: using their highly advanced (for the time) longships, they could strike anywhere with lightning speed. The Norse came for gold and stayed for land; Norse settlements were formed in Great Britain, Normandy and Ireland, as well as many islands of the North Atlantic, and Norse blood mingled with the population. Eventually, a group of Christian, French-ized Norsemen, known today as the Normans, overthrew the Anglo-Saxon rule over England and formed a nation that has endured to the present day.

My Crappy Excuse

Well, it's been quite a while since I've posted here, and still will be a while. Here it is: my crappy excuse. It can be summed up in three letters: S, A and T. I also invoke the the-play-starts-in-two-weeks-and-rehearsals-are-going-into-overdrive clause, but it's mainly the SAT. My schedule this past week has been arrive home at six, wolf down some sort of sustenance, go up to my room, do (most of) my homework, and study for the test until I either fall asleep at my desk or 1:30 rolls around. It seems that the teaching staff of Herricks High School has united to make this week the most difficult of my life. I don't even want to think about tomorrow, when I have my final SAT class and won't get home until nine. Long story short - all of my schoolwork from last Wednesday until this upcoming Saturday (SAT-urday) is going to be pretty darn poorly done, and that includes my blog. So instead of putting up two half-assed posts, I'm going to make up my posts for this week over the weekend, and leave you all with the most overused excuse in the history of the United States.