There's nothing quite like the feeling you get when you scratch "sleep" off of your to-do list. It's intimidating but liberating -- another bodily restraint you've ostensibly freed yourself from.
You consign "semi-regular sleep cycle" to the scrap pile of nonessential needs with its companions "three square meals a day" and "hygiene," and suddenly your homework window opens up like an eager psychiatric patient who's been stocking up on trauma for years and just needs somebody to talk to.
And then, like an Augustinian monk well-versed in self-sacrifice, you cloister yourself in the UL, subordinating your worldly physical considerations to study and the redemptive salvation of your GPA.
There's something almost mystical about it. All analogies aside, the all-nighter in the library is one of those twisted, mind-bending experiences that we don't often stop to think about. I write my best papers that way (also my worst), and in the last couple of years, I've started to appreciate the way my mind works when deprived of its most basic needs.
Reality starts to become decidedly unreal as soon as you hit upon the auditory hallucinations -- never before has waking up to violin been so disorienting. Even supposedly normal things start to feel weird when you can't be sure you're not dreaming.
Eventually you get to that fevered labor state where the cognitive levees you've thrown up between your dreams and your essay materials start to drift downstream in the flood of stress and free association, and before you know it, you wake up having dreamt about your paper and writing about your dreams.
You briefly forget how to build a sentence as you take a break to fumble with a sleeve of Thin Mints, and then you doze off again before recalling what grammar is. Your screen becomes an aquarium of Tetris and puzzle games and you wake up typing a sentence about land sharks into the middle of your philosophy paper, but at that point you're just glad to be producing words.
And then of course there's the day after. You wander around in a dazed, only vaguely lucid state, where everything always means so much more than it does because you get to sleep soon. The sun shining through the trees in the arboretum takes on a vividly technicolor tone like an old hand-colored film reel, and you're Dorothy, easing on down the astoundingly yellow-for-the-sake-of-being-yellow brick road. You feel unexpectedly nostalgic for sepia tones, and you wonder what color's doing in a movie.
Why do we do it? Well, that's obvious: it's homework. And we might as well be monastic copyists because these are some essays of Biblical proportions.
But why is it so exciting? Maybe it's the physical strain. Perhaps the all-nighter gives us a little sense of risk and adventure, however artificial, and elevates for a time the otherwise mundane, soul-sucking academic grind that university life can be.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/04/an-ode-to-the-all-pnighters
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Thinking outside the sanity box (The Daily Tarheel op-ed column Cries from the Peanut Gallery)
What would you say if I told you that creative and crazy, in a clinical sense, were not two distinct, unrelated characteristics -- that they don't just coincide randomly once in a blue moon to make some artist lop off half his ear with a straight razor or paint "The Scream"? What if I said they might be different degrees of the same thing? Would you call me crazy?
To be honest, we still don't know exactly how they're related, but research has revealed an undeniable correlation.
The Karolinska Institute in Sweden released a study in 2012 saying that Swedish writers were more than twice as likely to suffer from schizophrenia or bipolar disorder than the general population, in addition to having higher risks for all sorts of other disorders.
The study, with a sample size of well over a million, also found that individuals who were immediately related to someone with any of a variety of mental disorders were significantly more likely to be in some kind of "creative occupation." This hereditary relation might suggest an odd genetic parallel between creativity and mental illness.
In fact, past research at the Karolinska Institute has revealed telling similarities in the way creative people and schizophrenic people think. Similar dopamine systems give both groups the strange ideas and bizarre assumptions that peers later characterize as either "insane" or "genius."
Dr. Fredrik Ullen of the institute suggested that some degree of mental illness might augment creativity. "Thinking outside the box might be facilitated by having a somewhat less intact box," he said in a press release.
But how big, then, is the symptomatic gap between the two? Is there a point at which the only thing separating the artist from his schizophrenic sibling is a diagnosis?
Let's look at it from the patient's perspective. Karolinska scientist Simon Kyaga said the study suggests a new way of approaching mental illness. In a press release, he said if you accept that certain features of the patient's illness might sometimes be beneficial, it means "the doctor and patient must come to an agreement on what is to be treated, and at what cost."
This insight makes forced medication and aggressive treatment that many schizophrenic patients have to suffer through today, often without any say in their medical care, seem very questionable. It suggests patients may deserve a good deal more agency in determining their medical care.
I'll try a different angle.
I'm no mad creative genius -- my love of limericks and my zeal for poop jokes can attest to this -- but like most people, I've got my fair share of zany quirks, erratic thought patterns, manic behaviors and paranoid delusions. Don't we all?
These are inseparable form who we are and how we see ourselves. Any attempt to treat a symptom should include a concern for the impact on the individual's identity -- personality is not distinct from pathology.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/04/thinking-outside-the-sanity-box
To be honest, we still don't know exactly how they're related, but research has revealed an undeniable correlation.
The Karolinska Institute in Sweden released a study in 2012 saying that Swedish writers were more than twice as likely to suffer from schizophrenia or bipolar disorder than the general population, in addition to having higher risks for all sorts of other disorders.
The study, with a sample size of well over a million, also found that individuals who were immediately related to someone with any of a variety of mental disorders were significantly more likely to be in some kind of "creative occupation." This hereditary relation might suggest an odd genetic parallel between creativity and mental illness.
In fact, past research at the Karolinska Institute has revealed telling similarities in the way creative people and schizophrenic people think. Similar dopamine systems give both groups the strange ideas and bizarre assumptions that peers later characterize as either "insane" or "genius."
Dr. Fredrik Ullen of the institute suggested that some degree of mental illness might augment creativity. "Thinking outside the box might be facilitated by having a somewhat less intact box," he said in a press release.
But how big, then, is the symptomatic gap between the two? Is there a point at which the only thing separating the artist from his schizophrenic sibling is a diagnosis?
Let's look at it from the patient's perspective. Karolinska scientist Simon Kyaga said the study suggests a new way of approaching mental illness. In a press release, he said if you accept that certain features of the patient's illness might sometimes be beneficial, it means "the doctor and patient must come to an agreement on what is to be treated, and at what cost."
This insight makes forced medication and aggressive treatment that many schizophrenic patients have to suffer through today, often without any say in their medical care, seem very questionable. It suggests patients may deserve a good deal more agency in determining their medical care.
I'll try a different angle.
I'm no mad creative genius -- my love of limericks and my zeal for poop jokes can attest to this -- but like most people, I've got my fair share of zany quirks, erratic thought patterns, manic behaviors and paranoid delusions. Don't we all?
These are inseparable form who we are and how we see ourselves. Any attempt to treat a symptom should include a concern for the impact on the individual's identity -- personality is not distinct from pathology.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/04/thinking-outside-the-sanity-box
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Humans vs. Zombies: a defense (The Daily Tar Heel op-ed column "Cries from the peanut gallery")
Nearly every semester, a not insignificant segment of the student population stuffs socks into its pockets and bands together to re-enact "28 Days Later" and stage military maneuvers in the quad for a week.
These students nobly give up their homework time and the right to eat lunch in the Pit without fearing for their lives. But every single semester, there is at least one kvetch, editorial cartoon or curmudgeonly frat star that loudly voices their disapproval of the whole endeavor.
They suggest that this odd smattering of like-minded individuals with Nerf guns and bandanas must not know what it is to have friends or a life — that "college," as such, is passing these individuals by.
But how justified are any of us in thinking that the "college experience" or "a life" should and can only be what we imagine them to be? It's arrogant to assume that not only does everyone else enjoy the same things we do, but also that the things we do are necessarily the most enjoyable and worthwhile things we could be doing.
It can be different for everyone, but for me the "college experience" means doing those things you probably won't ever be able to do again. But you don't usually know what those things are until you stumble into them, because otherwise there would be nothing stopping you from doing them later.
Now I could revisit painful tropes like "college is for finding yourself" or time-honored college cliches, like the quintessential late night dorm room dialogue about profound and somewhat conceited topics like God (or lack thereof), meaning (or lack thereof) and happiness (or lack thereof).
And I'm definitely a fan of that whole jam, but when I think about my college experience I think about the unorthodox parts of it — whatever makes for a good story.
I'm talking about collecting instruments and playing Mumford & Sons while crossing Franklin Street during a hurricane before performing an acoustic cover of "Hey Ya" in a crowded Cosmic Cantina. I'm talking about getting a burrito thrown at you and seeing a window get nearly shattered with a wayward elbow before attempting to break up a fight outside Cosmic Cantina while the staff laughs and looks on.
I'm talking about being offered (and politely declining) sexual favors and gin from an ostensibly homeless couple at 8 p.m. on a weekday outside Cosmic Cantina.
In retrospect most of my really formative, unique college experiences in the last three years have involved Cosmic Cantina somehow, so I guess I've got some room for improvement, too.
So put yourself out there; throw yourself into weird situations just to see how you react — learn something about yourself.
And if the mood hits, maybe throw a sock or two at some people in bandanas babbling about eating brains. That's cool too.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/04/humans-vs-pzombies-a-defense
These students nobly give up their homework time and the right to eat lunch in the Pit without fearing for their lives. But every single semester, there is at least one kvetch, editorial cartoon or curmudgeonly frat star that loudly voices their disapproval of the whole endeavor.
They suggest that this odd smattering of like-minded individuals with Nerf guns and bandanas must not know what it is to have friends or a life — that "college," as such, is passing these individuals by.
But how justified are any of us in thinking that the "college experience" or "a life" should and can only be what we imagine them to be? It's arrogant to assume that not only does everyone else enjoy the same things we do, but also that the things we do are necessarily the most enjoyable and worthwhile things we could be doing.
It can be different for everyone, but for me the "college experience" means doing those things you probably won't ever be able to do again. But you don't usually know what those things are until you stumble into them, because otherwise there would be nothing stopping you from doing them later.
Now I could revisit painful tropes like "college is for finding yourself" or time-honored college cliches, like the quintessential late night dorm room dialogue about profound and somewhat conceited topics like God (or lack thereof), meaning (or lack thereof) and happiness (or lack thereof).
And I'm definitely a fan of that whole jam, but when I think about my college experience I think about the unorthodox parts of it — whatever makes for a good story.
I'm talking about collecting instruments and playing Mumford & Sons while crossing Franklin Street during a hurricane before performing an acoustic cover of "Hey Ya" in a crowded Cosmic Cantina. I'm talking about getting a burrito thrown at you and seeing a window get nearly shattered with a wayward elbow before attempting to break up a fight outside Cosmic Cantina while the staff laughs and looks on.
I'm talking about being offered (and politely declining) sexual favors and gin from an ostensibly homeless couple at 8 p.m. on a weekday outside Cosmic Cantina.
In retrospect most of my really formative, unique college experiences in the last three years have involved Cosmic Cantina somehow, so I guess I've got some room for improvement, too.
So put yourself out there; throw yourself into weird situations just to see how you react — learn something about yourself.
And if the mood hits, maybe throw a sock or two at some people in bandanas babbling about eating brains. That's cool too.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/04/humans-vs-pzombies-a-defense
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Is Comprehensive Gun Control Reform Losing Momentum? (Campus BluePrint Blog)
Gun control has remained a central legislative issue in Congress since President Barack Obama began the charge for reform in January, but now it looks like support might be slipping.
The Assault Weapons Ban, which received so much attention in the last couple months, has been cut from the main gun control package. It had already received committee approval to go before the Senate, but Majority Leader Harry Reid removed it out of concern for the lack of bipartisan support. Some also worried that Democratic senators from Republican-leaning states wouldn't be able to support the primary gun control legislation if the controversial ban was included. But now, even with the ban's exclusion, support for reform is not guaranteed.
The Assault Weapons Ban, which strengthens the expired 1994 ban on high-capacity ammo magazines and military-style assault weapons, will still be voted on as an amendment to the bill, said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, but right now it isn't included in the main reform effort.
So what's left? Instead of focusing on types of guns permitted, Reid's new bill limits its scope to school safety and how guns are exchanged and transported. The Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act, sponsored by Reid, will go before the Senate in early April. The overarching goal in the text of the bill is to "ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes."
The bill also includes provisions against illegal gun trafficking and the passing on of guns between individuals without government involvement.
Realistically speaking, the actual acquisition of guns is likely a more important point to concentrate on, as the size of the guns only affects the degree of destruction possible. It also begs the question: how effective can background checks really be in predicting violent activity in the future, and do they ignore the potential for gun owners to provide others with firearm access, either knowingly or unknowingly?
But the number one question on the minds of gun control reformers right now does not concern how effective or complete the current bill is. For it would be pointless to worry over what the bill is missing if even this incarnation of the legislation cannot muster enough support to pass.
At the time of Obama's speech on gun control on March 28, only one Republican had announced his support of the legislation, and broad support will be necessary if Republican senators follow through on their promises to block the bill with a filibuster. And then the bill will have to make it through the House of Representatives.
In anticipation of the conflict to take center stage in April, and to take advantage of the two-week Congressional recess, politicians, lobbyists and activists on both sides are speaking out and stepping up their respective agendas. As the National Rifle Association fires up its supporters in key districts throughout the country, Obama is flying to speak on the issue in Colorado. And organizations like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, led by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are mobilizing activists as well. This battle between gun rights supporters and gun control advocates has quickly spread nationwide, but no resolution will be forthcoming for either side until the conflict comes before the Senate next month.
http://campusblueprint.com/2013/04/02/is-comprehensive-gun-control-reform-losing-momentum/
The Assault Weapons Ban, which received so much attention in the last couple months, has been cut from the main gun control package. It had already received committee approval to go before the Senate, but Majority Leader Harry Reid removed it out of concern for the lack of bipartisan support. Some also worried that Democratic senators from Republican-leaning states wouldn't be able to support the primary gun control legislation if the controversial ban was included. But now, even with the ban's exclusion, support for reform is not guaranteed.
The Assault Weapons Ban, which strengthens the expired 1994 ban on high-capacity ammo magazines and military-style assault weapons, will still be voted on as an amendment to the bill, said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, but right now it isn't included in the main reform effort.
So what's left? Instead of focusing on types of guns permitted, Reid's new bill limits its scope to school safety and how guns are exchanged and transported. The Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act, sponsored by Reid, will go before the Senate in early April. The overarching goal in the text of the bill is to "ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes."
The bill also includes provisions against illegal gun trafficking and the passing on of guns between individuals without government involvement.
Realistically speaking, the actual acquisition of guns is likely a more important point to concentrate on, as the size of the guns only affects the degree of destruction possible. It also begs the question: how effective can background checks really be in predicting violent activity in the future, and do they ignore the potential for gun owners to provide others with firearm access, either knowingly or unknowingly?
But the number one question on the minds of gun control reformers right now does not concern how effective or complete the current bill is. For it would be pointless to worry over what the bill is missing if even this incarnation of the legislation cannot muster enough support to pass.
At the time of Obama's speech on gun control on March 28, only one Republican had announced his support of the legislation, and broad support will be necessary if Republican senators follow through on their promises to block the bill with a filibuster. And then the bill will have to make it through the House of Representatives.
In anticipation of the conflict to take center stage in April, and to take advantage of the two-week Congressional recess, politicians, lobbyists and activists on both sides are speaking out and stepping up their respective agendas. As the National Rifle Association fires up its supporters in key districts throughout the country, Obama is flying to speak on the issue in Colorado. And organizations like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, led by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are mobilizing activists as well. This battle between gun rights supporters and gun control advocates has quickly spread nationwide, but no resolution will be forthcoming for either side until the conflict comes before the Senate next month.
http://campusblueprint.com/2013/04/02/is-comprehensive-gun-control-reform-losing-momentum/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)