dan_edge

By [email protected] (Dan Edge) from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog Or: Why One Shouldn't Joke About Serious Things When my wife's parents make jokes about me being a dumb redneck from a 3rd world country (South Carolina), it's hilarious. It's funny because it's completely ridiculous. They know that I'm an intelligent, educated young man whom they love and respect. I am the exact opposite of what their sarcastic comments indicate. The sharp contrast between the joke and reality is what makes it so funny. When they make these kinds of jokes, they are drawing attention to the fact that they love and respect me, and it makes me feel good. But what if my in-laws actually thought I was ignorant, racist, or stupid? Their sarcasm would take on a completely different meaning. Their jokes would be a thinly veiled assault on my character. If I knew they were even partially serious when they made fun of me, then I would be offended by their comments. To alter the example somewhat: what if I had a self-esteem problem and believed that I actually was, in part, an ignorant redneck? When my in-laws joked about it, I might feel offended, even though no offense was intended. One couldn't blame them if they didn't know I had a self-esteem issue. But what if they knew it made me uncomfortable? Should they refrain from making such jokes? Or: what if I was relatively ignorant (as a result of poor education) or had a below-average intelligence, and my in-laws knew it? What meaning would their sarcasm have in this case? To answer these questions, one must understand the proper role and function of humor. The rational man uses humor to ridicule evil and irrationality. Humor is an expression of one's conviction that evil is metaphysically impotent, that "[w]e never had to take any of it seriously". When my in-laws joke about where I came from, they are pretending to adopt a ridiculously irrational viewpoint: that anyone from the south is necessarily ignorant and stupid. They are making fun of irrational prejudice, and calling attention to the fact that I am the exact opposite of the prejudicial stereotype. But if my in-laws actually accepted the irrational stereotype of southerners, then their humor would have the exact opposite meaning. To them, the evil would be me thinking I could overcome the stereotype. They would be ridiculing my belief that I am intelligent and educated. This kind of derisive sarcasm is common among college professors, as I'm sure many Objectivist students can verify. It represents the nastiest kind of metaphysical premise: hatred of the good for being the good. Consider now the altered example, in which I am actually intelligent and educated, but have a self-esteem problem. Part of me believes that I can't overcome the stereotype of the southern country boy. One couldn't blame my in-laws if they made well-intentioned jokes that hurt my feelings. They would have no way of knowing about my self-esteem problem unless I communicated it to them. This kind of case is common because many young people retain irrational premises from their upbringing that negatively impact their self-esteem. Oftentimes, one is hurt when others make him the butt of jokes, but he doesn't say anything about it because he doesn't think he should feel offended. (I discuss this kind of error in more detail in my article Are There Bad Emotions?). The answer here is that one should communicate to others, especially loved ones, if their jokes make him uncomfortable. If one doesn't know why it makes him uncomfortable, then he must introspect to determine the cause of these emotions. Feeling uncomfortable at being the butt of well-intentioned jokes can be a clue that an unresolved self-esteem issue exists. While he is dealing with his psychological problems, he ought to ask his loved ones not to joke about it, because to him it is a very serious issue. Otherwise, resentment and silent animosity can begin to develop in his relationships. If one knew that his loved one had a self-esteem problem, and he joked about it anyway, then what meaning would the humor have? What evil is being ridiculed? If my in-laws knew that I was insecure about my upbringing, and joked about it anyway, then they would be making fun of my inner struggle. The evil, in their eyes, would be the fact of my self-esteem problem. But psychological problems as such are not evil, and struggling to overcome them is an effort to be admired, not ridiculed. For this reason, I consider it very rude and inappropriate for one to make fun of another's psychological problems, especially if that person has communicated that it makes him uncomfortable. Finally, consider the example in which I am relatively ignorant or unintelligent. Assuming that my ignorance is not self-inflicted, then it would be highly inappropriate to make fun of me for it. I did not choose where I went to primary school, and my degree of intelligence is also non-volitional. So if one were to make fun of me, the evil he is ridiculing is the fact of my ignorance or lack of intelligence. But these traits are not evil as such, not if they are outside the realm of one's volition. If I saw someone making fun of a man with Downs Syndrome for being stupid - or a frail, elderly man for walking slowly - or a cripple for being confined to a wheelchair -- then I would want to punch his lights out. These kinds of jokes are the basest form of humor. It's like laughing at an innocent man on a torture rack. While the preceding example is more clear-cut, it's not always obvious when one is using humor inappropriately. Sarcasm between friends can be great fun, but it can also be hurtful, whether well intentioned or not. The key is to keep in mind the nature of humor, identify to oneself what evils he is ridiculing, and communicate with his loved ones if their humor makes him uncomfortable. In closing, I have a final message to my readers: You are the dumbest, smelliest, most wretched bunch of Kantian sexual deviants I've ever had the displeasure of knowing! Seriously... --Dan Edge View the full article

I just blogged on a related topic here. The title of the article is: Just Kidding. Sort of... Or: Why One Shouldn't Joke About Serious Things It may come up on the Metablog in a few days, but in the mean time, anyone interested in the topic of humor can check out that link. Thanks, --Dan Edge

By [email protected] (Dan Edge) from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog This blog entry was posted on The Undercurrent blog on June 12, 2008. A high school valedictorian in California, whose parents fled violence in Armenia when he was two years old, is being deported. Arthur Mkoyan dreams of applying to medical school after he finishes high school next week, but instead immigration officials plan to send him back to Armenia ten days after graduation. Arthur has petitioned California Senator Dianne Feinstein to pass a “Private Bill” which would allow his family to stay in the country. Very few such bills are ever passed, but with all the media attention this story is getting, there’s a chance. Arthur has asked the major news organizations to publish his email address (artmkoyan [at] gmail [dot] com) so that he can forward letters of support to Mrs. Feinstein. I will write such a letter to him today, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. This story, which may soon become a tragedy, is an instance of the horribly broken immigration policy of the United States. For a rational view of immigration policy, read Rebecca Knapp’s excellent article on immigration from a 2006 issue of The Undercurrent. –Dan Edge **Update - According to one website, a Private Bill has been filed on behalf of the Mkoyan family and their deportation has been delayed. I could not confirm this news elsewhere. View the full article

Adultery isn't inherently immoral in that same sense that doing heroin isn't inherently immoral. In almost every conceivable context, it's a horribly destructive and evil thing to do, but in certain very unusual cases, it can be acceptable. If you're dying of cancer, and every moment is a painful struggle, then heroin (or other opiates) can make you more comfortable. It can ease the pain while leaving you conscious and aware, still able to communicate with your family during your final days. In this kind of case, using heavy drugs can be moral. Maybe. But it's still very borderline, and we shouldn't condone it as a regular practice. If your life-long lover doesn't fulfill your needs in some important respect, then it having an open affair might save your marriage in the long run. For instance, if you are a super-genius with a 200 IQ and your husband is only a normal genius with a 140 IQ, then it's possible that there are certain values he can't share with you. Perhaps he can't understand the breadth of your achievements, can't discuss ideas on the same level with you, etc. In this kind of case, having a (short-term) affair with another super-genius might fill your needs enough that you can stay with your life-long love. In this context, adultery could be moral. Maybe. But it's still borderline, and we shouldn't condone it as a regular practice. While not inherently immoral, both heroine and adultery are inherently destructive. No matter what the state of your health, heroine damages your body. It destroys part of your mental and physical capacities. No matter what the state of your romantic life, adultery damages your relationships. It destroys part of your capacity for intimacy and psychological visibility. Whether or not Rand was moral in her adultery, I can't judge. I didn't know her personally, nor anyone else involved. But I will say that her example is not one to be followed, nor viewed as a standard of moral action. --Dan Edge

Did you respond to th wrong thread perhaps? --Dan Edge

A few of my faves: (Mostly echoes of movies already mentioned): - Drama: Life is Beautiful - Romantic Comedy: The Princess Bride - Comedy - Austin Powers - Fantasy: Lord of the Rings - Sci-Fi: Serenity - Musical - Man of La Mancha - Thriller: Silence of the Lambs - Horror: 28 Days Later - Documentary: Band of Brothers - Animated: Shrek - Honorable Mention: Shawshank Redemption, Swing Kids, Incredibles, Braveheart, Rebecca, When Harry Met Sally, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner There are so many! --Dan Edge

Happy Birthday, Kendall! As others have said, you are one of the very best on this forum. I won't be at OCON this year unfortunately, but we'll meet one of these days. Best, --Dan Edge

By [email protected] (Dan Edge) from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog (Jeff Widener, Associated Press, June 5, 1989) No one knows who this man is or what happened to him after this photo was taken. But nearly 19 years ago, he heroically stared down a line of Chinese tanks in defiance against tyranny. He was later branded 'The Unknown Rebel' by the media. I call him 'The Unknown Hero.' Hundreds of civilians, many of them students, died that day as Chinese soldiers opened fire on a group of protesters in Tiananmen Square. The students were protesting for free media reform (freedom of speech), one of the key components of a free society. This image has always been evocative for me because it demonstrates the courage that free men must have to overcome violent irrationalism. I look at this picture often, for the same reason I look at news footage of the WTC attacks every year on September 11. I want to remind myself of the importance to fight against evil, in any form, wherever it rears its ugly head. The cost of inaction is dire. And more, images like this one inspire me to live my life to the fullest. Heroism is not restricted to characters in stories. Anyone can be a hero in his own life. If this lone man has the courage to walk in front of a line of tanks, then I can certainly do my best every day to become a better man. --Dan Edge View the full article

By [email protected] (Dan Edge) from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog When I first looked at the syllabus for the Sophomore year at the Objectivist Academic Center, I thought "No sweat!" The source material for SARPO (Seminar on Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism) includes OPAR, ITOE, Philosophy: Who Needs It, The Virtue of Selfishness, and a few others -- all books I've read at least twice, and in some cases many times. I already have a BA in Philosophy, and I've been studying Objectivism for twelve years. This Undergraduate course would be a cinch. "I won't even have to study," I thought. Wrong! SARPO was among the most challenging courses I've ever taken. Our instructor Onkar Ghate set the pace in the first class. He stressed that Ayn Rand did not arrive at her philosophy deductively. Objectivism was the result of massive inductions by a brilliant mind over the course of decades. He warned against taking a rationalistic approach and said that, in SARPO, we would be trying to emulate her approach in grasping Objectivism. This meant many examples, many questions, and many extensive discussions. Ghate would keep questioning us on each key point until we had fully grounded it to reality. Partial or halfway understanding was not sufficient. Sometimes I would question why Ghate spent so much time on a certain point. I would opine, "I see what you're saying, Dr. Ghate, I just don't think it's that important. Why focus on X instead of Y?" On a few points, I openly disagreed with his approach, whether it was his use of certain terms (like "metaphysical" certainty, a concept I reject), the application of virtue (I argued that parenting is a productive activity), or whether it was possible to make the professor laugh out loud during class (I thought yes, but he proved a difficult target). He would patiently dissect his own reasoning for stressing particular principles and formulations. I wasn't always satisfied, and follow-up questions were always welcome. Sometimes I still didn't agree with him after a few rounds of back and forth. Ghate would continue the discussion until time constraints forced us to move on, but one was struck by the degree of respect with which he treated every question or objection. There are truly no stupid questions in Ghate's class. (Contrary to the myth propagated by some, no one is ever berated or chastised in class.) SARPO challenged me to fully integrate each key principle of Objectivism. Thanks to this class, I have a much more thorough understand of the philosophy as an integrated system. I feel like my understanding has been taken to a whole new level. My own studies in Objectivism have taken me far, but there is simply no substitute for guided learning from someone who knows more about the subject matter. I'm a proud man, but I must admit that Ghate knows a little bit more about Objectivism than I do (at least for now -- give me a few more years). It goes without saying that I highly recommend the OAC to anyone, at any level of study. But especially students. The writing classes from the first year alone will take you to another level of intellectual achievement. And if you survive till the end of year 2, you will have a fully grounded platform of knowledge from which to spring into any specialized field of study you choose. The instructors are professional and knowledgeable, the assistants are friendly and helpful, and your classmates will likely be the cream of the crop. From what I hear, the admissions requirements are getting more and more stringent each year, so you best get in now while the gettin's good. The application form can be found here. I would be happy to answer any questions about my experience from prospective students. Ask in the comments section of this post or email me at i.am.dan.edge(at)gmail.com I will be taking a hiatus from the OAC next year to work on The Undercurrent student newspaper. But I will miss my classmates, I will miss Dr. Ghate, and I will miss being immersed in knowledge every Wednesday from 7 pm - 10 pm. Fortunately, I have developed friendships with several of my classmates who live in the New York area, so they can keep me current on the OAC front. But for now: so long, OAC! We'll see you again in the fall of 2009. I know you will miss me, but be strong. When next we meet, the Benevolent Universe will shine through sparks and flying dragons! --Dan Edge View the full article

I watched part of the Libertarian Convention on CSPAN over the weekend. I got to hear from each of the prospective nominees for the Libertarian ticket, and I was monumentally unimpressed. It is more clear to me why Rand and others opposed the Libertarian party. They were literally all over the political spectrum. Some of them supported government intervention in the pharma industry, some strongly opposed open immigration, and none of them had a grasp of international politics or defense. Two candidates openly eschewed applying philosophical principles to politics! On the other hand, it was pleasant to hear politicians on television calling loudly and proudly for an end to the War on Drugs. Sometimes they would say things that gave me warm fuzzies. One guy kept saying: "The answer is always the same: get the government out of the way and turn things over to private industry!" In short, I wish I could pull for these guys, but their inconsistency (read: lack of integrity) is tragically significant. --Dan Edge

New Objectivizzle in the hizzle! Word. --Dan Edge

One of the speakers (I think it was Binswanger, but I can't recall) at the Atlas Shrugged 50th anniversary event at NYU corroborated Betsy's story. It was funny, because one speaker said something about the Frank/Francisco connection, then the very next speaker pointed out Rand's preference of not naming fictional characters after real people. --Dan Edge

Howdy, I look forward to reading your thoughts. Welcome to the forum. --Dan Edge

By [email protected] (Dan Edge) from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog According to CNN, the Lebanese government has effectively surrendered to Hezbollah militants. I do not exaggerate. Over the past few days, Hezbollah has initiated a military coup, moving to take over airports and pro-government television stations. The Lebanese army is not fighting back, their leaders say, because so many soldiers are pro-Hezbollah, and ordering them to attack would throw the army into disarray. Instead, political and military leaders have negotiated the surrender of western Beirut. Pro-government gunmen are being persuaded to lay down arms without a fight. With Hezbollah in control of Lebanon, and with the backing of Iran and it's puppet, Syria, we can be sure that Lebanon will again become the primary staging point for attacks on Israel. If any positive slant can be taken on recent events, it is that Israel now clearly has the right to wage a full scale war against Lebanon and Syria. I seriously doubt that will happen, but as soon as attacks against Israeli civilians begin to mount, they will demand military action. Of course, militants will continue to use the Lebanese civilian population as cover, and Israel will be condemned the first time it destroys a Hezbollah rocket position that happens to be on top of a hospital. If you want my opinion of what Israel needs to do to defend itself, read my article Israel Must Respond to Militant Islam With Overwhelming Force. This article was a response to Israel's military actions against Hezbollah following the kidnapping of IDF soldiers in 2006, but the same principle still applies: that a nation has the moral right to do anything it must to defend its citizens against an enemy aggressor. If only Israel (or better yet, America) heeded this advice, we would live in a much safer world. --Dan Edge View the full article

My wife and I saw Iron Man this past weekend, and I enjoyed it. It was a fun, action packed superhero movie. I laughed out loud several times, and the special effects were fantastic. However, I was a little let down after the glowing reviews of the movie I got from here and some of my friends. The theme of Iron Man is somewhat ambiguous, as JASKN noted, so it didn't exactly make my spirit soar. The characterization was not as developed as I would have liked. As for superhero movies, I would rank Xmen, Xmen 2, Spiderman, and a few others above Iron Man. Overall, a fun summer blockbuster worth seeing in the theatre. --Dan Edge

I agree with Thomas that it takes both introspection and experience to overcome psychological ills. In my writing, I focus on the introspection part of it because that is my particular interest, and also because I believe this aspect is not as well understood. In many cases, people don't realize that they have a psychological problem. Or they may know they have a problem, but not know the source of it. This is where introspection is critical, and where journaling can help. You can't fix a problem you don't know the source of. --Dan Edge

Thomas, Very good point. The structure of that paragraph does imply that emotions are not tools of cognition because they are non-volitional, which is incorrect. Throughout the paper, I was arguing that only a volitional faculty can evaluate the data provided by emotions. But the argument as presented in the passage you quoted is a non sequitur. Thanks for your comments, --Dan Edge

Thanks, guys (and gal). I'm really glad you liked it. I'm hoping to get an 'A' on this --Dan Edge

I must respectfully and emphatically agree with Kendall. Thanks for the plug, sir. Here are a few articles of interest: Opposite Sex Friendships Meta-communication The 'Cash Value' of Mind-Body Integration, Part 2 The Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality (Parts 1-6) The Benevolent People Premise and More "Demoting" a Relationship Initial Sexual Attraction Love at First Sight The Morality of Monogamy --Dan Edge

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog During my most recent one-on-one Tutorial for OAC class (the subject of which was my last article), Dr. Ghate introduced a very interesting formulation about the function of emotions that I would like to share here.In my paper, I described the function of emotions this way: “They give one an automatic, instantaneous response to percept(s) or imagination, based on previously formed judgments that are stored in the subconscious.” Dr. Ghate did not object to this sentence, but he asked if I could describe the function of emotions from a philosophical, rather than a psychological, perspective. I am used to thinking about emotions from a psychological perspective, so I wasn’t sure what he was looking for. To help clue me in, Ghate said, “Think about it this way. What is the function of the subconscious?” (To be clear, for the purpose of this article, when I use the term “subconscious,” I am referring to the aspect of consciousness that stores and retrieves data in the form of concepts.) Now this question, I had an answer for. I devoted a paragraph to the teleology of the subconscious in my article on Mind-Body Integration.“The teleology of the subconscious must now be considered. Man is able to deal with vast quantities of information because his subconscious provides him information related to whatever his mind is focused on at any particular time. If one's mind is well organized in a hierarchical fashion, then the subconscious will provide information stored close by within the hierarchy. Conceptual units may be interrelated and cross-classified in a variety of ways, and the subconscious aims to provide the focal awareness with related information. For instance, if one is thinking about snakes, his subconscious will send him units related to snakes, like reptile, or animal, or some memory of an encounter with a snake, or some emotion related to snakes (like fear), etc. The information provided depends both on the organization of one's mind and the context in which the idea arises in the focal awareness.” I gave Dr. Ghate some approximation of this paragraph (including the snake example) during our conversation. Once again, my tack on the question was much more psychological than philosophical. With more prodding from Ghate, I was able to reduce it down to a more fundamental point: The function of the subconscious is to make one’s knowledge immediately available to him. Now how does this relate to emotions? Dr. Ghate finally gave me his answer. The function of emotion is to make one’s values immediately available to him. This formulation sounds similar to the one I started with, but the comparison to the function of the subconscious opens up more avenues of thought. The subconscious provides one with an instantaneous stream of data related to whatever he is focusing on. If one is having a discussion about nationalized healthcare, for instance, his subconscious may stand at the ready with data about economics and capitalism generally, the pharma industry in particular, and a variety of related concrete examples. During the discussion, a rational (non-insane) man’s mind would not respond with information about puppies, black holes, and the Illiad, because these things are not directly relevant. This has survival value, because the data stored in one’s subconscious can become vast over a lifetime. If one had to manually sort through every piece of knowledge he ever acquired for each new process of thought, he would be utterly paralyzed. Because the functioning of the subconscious is automatic, it cannot do one’s thinking for him. While one is discussing nationalized healthcare, his mind will provide him with many different items of knowledge. But one must choose which ideas to focus on, how to organize them in his focal awareness, and how to present them in conversation. If one were to simply blurt out everything that his subconscious brought to mind, he would be unable to utter a complete thought. He would wander from subject to subject, never completing a sentence, never communicating anything effectively, neither to himself nor anyone else. (Those who have known me for a while may recognize this as an exact description of the 17-year-old Dan trying to explain Objectivism Also, even a healthy mind may provide data that are seemingly relevant, but which do not in fact lead one in the right direction. In thinking about the ills of government-sponsored health insurance, one’s mind may wander to whether or not he paid his insurance premium this month. One must keep his mind focused in order to filter out data that is nonessential in any particular context. One has a crucial epistemological responsibility to separate his conscious and subconscious mind, and always to organize and evaluate the ideas that are automatically provided by the subconscious. Emotions, too, have survival value because they reduce one’s values into an instantaneous response to whatever one is focusing on. Just as one’s knowledge becomes vast over time, so one’s evaluations become vast. If every is implies an ought, then there are as many (implicit) evaluations stored in one’s mind as there are items of knowledge. If one had to manually sort though every judgment he ever made, or could make, before choosing a course of action, he would be paralyzed. But emotions are also automatic, and they cannot be used as a substitute for thinking. When discussing nationalized healthcare, one may experience a negative emotional response, clueing him in to the fact that it is evil. This emotional response is based on a variety of related evaluations: the value of health care, the value of free trade, and the disvalue of government intervention, to name a few. But one must use his focal awareness to determine which evaluations are relevant in the present context. One’s emotions may conflict with his conscious evaluations, in which case only reason can resolve the conflict. Also, even a healthy mind may provide automatized evaluations that are seemingly relevant, but are in fact nonessential. For instance, imagine that a doctor is having the nationalized healthcare discussion with a new acquaintance whom he judges to be fundamentally rational, but who retains some bad ideas. And this acquaintance is defending nationalized healthcare partially as a devil’s advocate. The doctor, who is intimately familiar with the evil effects of socialized medicine, may experience an overwhelmingly negative emotional response. He may feel himself growing very angry. But he is angry at the idea and its consequences, not at this new acquaintance who is honestly trying to unravel the issue for himself. It would be wrong of the doctor to lash out at his potential new friend. Again, one must keep his mind focused in order to filter out data that is nonessential in any particular context. I think this comparison of the subconscious to emotions is brilliant, and I want to thank Dr. Ghate for the formulation. I must add that, while I think that Ghate would agree with most of what I wrote here, he only presented the formulation in general terms. The examples and extrapolations are all mine. The broader point, and the one which I wish to develop further in the future, is that the mental mechanism for the subconscious and for emotions is the same. I believe that the mind treats automatized concepts, memories, physical motions, evaluations, and emotions as interrelated units. One can follow the development of this theory by reading The Psycho-Epistemology of Acting, Mind-Body Integration, and The Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality (especially part III.) I’ll get around to writing a book about it one of these days. Thanks for reading, --Dan Edge <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--> View the full article

Hello, I'm very pleased that my article has inspired so much discussion. I've tried to read most of the posts on this and the other thread, but I don't have time to respond to them all. A brief summary of my thoughts: I disagree with the positions taken by Ifat, Mrocktor, Roland, and Olex (to some degree). I believe that a few of you have misconstrued my position into an advocation of evasion -- it is not. As Inspector indicated, my article assumes that one's long-term romantic partner is his #1 value. If this is not the case for you, if you are not madly in love with a long-term romantic partner, then my advice does not apply. I note that the vast majority of those arguing against my article (here and elsewhere) are relatively young and are unmarried, while most of those who support the article are older and married. This makes sense because my arguments are primarily inductive, not deductive. I'm pointing to psychological and social phenomena that I have observed, and I have attempted to tie them together under a comprehensible generalization. Those who have observed the same phenomena tend to follow the arguments more easily than those who are not in the position to have experienced them. Regarding the relative value of a current long-term lover versus another potential lover: A long-term romantic partner becomes more and more of a value the longer one remains in a healthy relationship. As one shares life experiences with another, the two become a part of one another. Over time, one's lover grows more and more into a reflection of everything he values about life. This degree of psychological visibility is immensely valuable, and it cannot be transferred to another woman at whim. (I wrote about this in my Morality of Monogamy article.) None of us are in the position of God, judging each new person's "absolute value" and ranking them accordingly. The value of a person is not some static, Platonic quantity. Kelly is a much greater value to me that she ever will be to any of you. Does that mean that she is somehow objectively more Valuable than any other woman I will ever meet? The very question is rationalistic. My history with Kelly makes her a greater value to me, and this is a history I do not share with any other woman on the planet. There's a lot more I could write here, but I just don't have the time. Thanks, --Dan Edge

Dude, I turn 30 this year, and I'm just now getting a grasp on what I want to do with my life. It's a myth that you will naturally develop passion for whatever it is you were "meant" to do. Passion is fostered and developed over years of experimentation with different kinds of productive activities. My advice is: try different kinds of jobs and explore different hobbies. If you find something that catches your fancy even a little bit, put some time into it, get good at it, and see if you passion and interest grows. If so, keep at it. If not, maybe keep at it anyway and learn a variety of different skills that may be applicable elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with changing careers at 25, 30, or 40 years old. A lot of people feel paralyzed by their lack of passion, and never go out there and actually do stuff. Go hiking, learn to dance, read a bunch of good books, get a job in sales, learn accounting, practice flirting, try cooking unusual meals. It doesn't matter if you're not immediately motivated to do these things; if necessary, force yourself to experiment. Again, passions must be developed, they do not spring up out of nothing. You'll be fine --Dan Edge

It's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. I'm glad you came out of your shell to say hello