i've been thinking about what the doctor told me the last time i was in, though, and i think it's both correct and sort of reflective of the reality of the situation, which is that a psychological disability is really defined by whether you decide to have one or not. it's kind of justifying my tactics, actually. i'm not talking about physical limiting factors or something like down's syndrome, i'm talking about depression or personality disorders...

it's been remarked more than once that the society we live in is a psychopathic society, defined by antisocial social relations. you really can't get ahead unless you *do* have a personality disorder.

but what he told me was that it's pretty rare to see a psychiatrist for more than a few minutes, and most of them provide instant diagnosis. which produced ridicule from me. if you know me, you can imagine my response. are they magicians? medicine men? healers? what the fuck?

here's a good example of this. i'm looking through the review i picked up last week. it indicated i wasn't experiencing a loss of appetite, which implicitly suggested that i'm not all that depressed. but, that's such a hokey analysis. i'm actually the kind of person that assigns a lot of value to being thin (i don't tend to judge others by their weight, but it's important to me that i don't gain weight) and is fairly careful about how much i eat in order to ensure that i don't gain weight. i'm not like on a regimented diet or anything, and i don't tend to starve myself, but i'll routinely skip a day if i have a big meal. i consequently wouldn't associate a loss of appetite with depression, i'd associate it with forward-thinking - it would mean i'm looking forward to something. i'd actually associate over-eating with depression. stuffing my face would be not giving a fuck; eating less would be altering my figure for a future purpose.

the point i'm getting at isn't that one analysis is inherently superior to the other. certainly, a loss of appetite is going to be a negative indicator for some people. what i'm getting at is that it's not the kind of thing you can arrive at through talking to somebody for an hour. and, what's worse is that i wouldn't even expect an uneducated fool to be confused on this point. it's in the realm of common sense. how we can have doctors that are willing to jump to such specious deductions with such a deficit of evidence is befuddling to me.

i initially assumed my initial diagnosis was haphazard. but, i'm starting to realize it's not the case. my initial diagnosis was no less rigorous than what i'm coming up against, and consequently no less valid. and, as a result, i don't see anything wrong with pushing buttons until i get what i want - because it's ultimately all just a lot of bullshit, anyways.

so, i don't want to use my phone as a shield if i ever get in a sword fight. i'll remember that.

you don't want to make toast in the shower, either. might get electrocuted.

i really think that what we're seeing with this - and the brief part about the fossils is instructive - ought to have a profound effect on how we rethink how we analyze the fossil record. what we think of as intermediate forms may often not be. and, conversely, we may require less intermediate forms to build a proper evolutionary picture than we currently realize.

it's not just the hybridization event, it's the whole scenario. there's an excellent model here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9-Q1eIFA_U