Buying cigarettes on a whim

[martinemonster]

Yes, I know, I was supposed to have quit smoking, but what can a girl do when everything keeps building up and the work load starts looking like the paper version of a Nürnberg rally? That's right; give in to temptation. Plus, I'm waging a war against my body these days. Staying up late, getting up ridiculously early, drinking coffee and denying it all that it asks for. My body says: "Hey, I'm feeling a bit down, why don't we relax for a few days?" and I say: "Hah! I'm gonna get an extra part-time job! See how relaxed you are then?" Honestly, I'm feeling like the evil stepmother in Cinderella. Well, except for the fact that I'm doing it to myself.

Anyways, my point was that quitting smoking once means that I no longer have a favorite brand of cigarettes, and this opens the door to a whole new world of trial and error! It is ever so exciting for me and ever so annoying for anyone behind the counter. Yesterday, after about 3 minutes of "hmmm...I think I'll take the light blue packet. No! Wait! Give me the orange one. Or the green one? I can't decide. Orange? No, green! No, orange. No, green!", I bought the new, green Prince cigarettes (solely because of the pretty color). And loh and behold: They were awesome. And that's saying a lot since I'm quite full of prejudice against Prince cigarettes. Turns out, their new "First cut" green cigarettes are completely without additives, which freaked me out at first since I for a moment thought they might be lacking in all that good stuff as well. But these were just as deliciously filled with nicotine and anything else that's bad for you as any other cigarettes, but with the added bonus of not tasting like anything other than pure, yummy tobacco leaves. I think these are my new favorite cigarettes. The only downside to them are the fact that they're very strong. And for someone who recently started smoking Marlboro lights, I can basically feel the deliciousness burning its way down my throat.

In other news, I actually listened to the news this morning. It did nothing more than reaffirm my previous notion that the entire world is filled up with idiots however, when the main news was that scientists now believe that eating disorders might be hereditary. Seriously? These people think it's based in our genes? How about the fact that you spend your first years learning how to behave from your parents, watching what they do? I mean, if my mom was anorectic I don't think you'd see me munching on a pizza often. You cannot base everything on DNA no matter how fun that might be. Mozart probably wouldn't have been a great artist if he hadn't had a piano when he grew up, and people who inherit their parents' eating disorders do so for the same reason that I act a lot like my mom: they're learning how to behave from watching their parents' behavior. So there!

Comments

[lurvelille.livejournal.com]

nettopp fordi du periodevis er rape gal, så liker jeg deg stadig bedre martine:)

[martinemonster.livejournal.com]

Um, takk, tror jeg? :D

Rape gal? Jeg er sunn som et aspeløv! Så det så!

[pic2008.livejournal.com]

"You cannot base everything on DNA no matter how fun that might be."

The problem is that no matter how fun it might be, nurture is a bad basis for observations as well. Just take something as simple as how tall you grow up to be. In Norway, it's close to 100% genetic. Your parents are tall, chances are you'll be tall as well. But in a developing country, it's nearly 100% dependent on how much money you have.

Aren't statistics fun? They really are a crap way to base conclusions about the world on, but at least they're marginally less crap than any other method I can think of. =)

[martinemonster.livejournal.com]

True. But as long as we both agree that it's not a case of either/or but of both, we can all be happy, right?

[sortkatt.livejournal.com]

Yargh!
(I should have said something about my parents being pirates here, but I couldn't think of anything).

I'm afraid I see you come off as almost as pig headed as the people you are criticizing. There's quite a lot of scary research out there giving very good indications that genes are important parts of who we are. You know, all those things with siblings and twins separated at birth, growing up in different environments, but still having spookily similar traits.

Now, I haven't read the article, and I admit, it does seem silly, but If they base their conclusions on more than statistics, they might, for all I know, have come over something important.

Hell, I dunno.

You just seemed to be saying that you though "everything was upbringing" in the same way these guys might say "everything is genes". The only thing I'm certain of in that debate is that nothing is only the one thing or the other.

Also, I like pirates.

Yarr!

[martinemonster.livejournal.com]

Well, I certainly didn't mean to come off that way. I personally believe that a lot of our personality is based on our upbringing rather than on genes, but not everything. What I do believe however, is that eating disorders are not hereditary, but is based solely on upbringing. But hey, it could of course be that I'm wrong. That these people have studied all these families and somehow found a way to see the "eating disorder gene" and thus manage to point out the difference between things learned from behavior and things inherent in your gene pool. But I do have some questions to that theory:

1. If it's hereditary, how come we only see eating disorders in rich countries?

2. If that is hereditary, is wife beating also laid down in our genes? I mean, you see that people who have been beaten as a child goes on to beat themselves. Obviously, by the same argument, that must be genetic too, right?

(Okay, this came off a little more angry than I meant it to. And pirates are awesome!)

[sortkatt.livejournal.com]

Aha!
I might not have provoked thought, but at least I was provoking. Thats something at least.

I'm gonna play devils advocate again. Both since I'm a sucker for being annoying and because it's the pirate way:

1: Perhaps because we only look for them there. Kinda like cancer.

2: Perhaps. At least empathic proficiency, the tendency to solve problems with violence, the ability to control rage, such things might be determined, at least in part, by genetic makeup. In the same way that some parts of what makes people anorexic (I know next to nothing about eating disorders, so I'll not try to speculate in what these parts might be) might be influenced by ones genes.

I know I, as a good socialist should be a big fan of the "upbringing" stance, and I am. That doesn't mean I can ignore the importance of genes though.

If I were given a piano when I grew up, I doubt I would have become a new Mozart. (OK, bad example, I excel at everything I try to do... say... if my sister were given one... yup.)

[sortkatt.livejournal.com]

Og garhghrhrhr!!!

Hva i satan er det med reklamen på tingen din! Fysjomæsjom!

[martinemonster.livejournal.com]

15 ikoner kjære, 15 ikoner...jeg sier ikke mer.

[sortkatt.livejournal.com]

640K should be enough for anyone.

Some of us old 'uns once learned to go without. It's a useful experience some of you youngsters would have benefited from.

Also, the pure, clean feeling of having a computer boot without the clutter of mouse drivers or Norwegian keyboard support... Like fresh, icy water from a mountain spring...

...I'm getting sidetracked aren't I?

[martinemonster.livejournal.com]

But you dinosaurs are so cute... ;)

[martinemonster.livejournal.com]

1: that is not true. There has been several studies looking for anorexia in several parts of the world, and it's a specific western thing.

2: I'll give you that, but I really really believe that upbringing can do wonders for people. If not, why would we try to socialize people? And why wouldn't we be as violent as we were when we were children if all we did was genetic makeup?

Yeah, I didn't become Mozart either, but if nobody taught me the good thing about reading, I doubt I'd feel a burning need to express myself in writing...

[sortkatt.livejournal.com]

1:
a) OK. Many enough and widespread enough to catch it even though other factors might help hide it?

b) Other factors might hide anorexia. If no one has food, no one will notice someone not eating. (Yes, that's a lame example, but there are others).

c)If these guys have found a genetic trait that is instrumental in provoking anorexia, it might be specific to certain ethnicities.

d)You might be completely right. These scientist might be idiots. Or just trying to appear significant. Or both. Even more likely (if you are right), the journalists might have misunderstood or exaggerated the results. I don't like calling people idiots before I'm certain, though. If they claim have found a genetic trait that might influence anorexia, I don't have enough knowledge to be certain they are wrong.




2:
Hey, you are the one arguing that anorexia is _only_ dependent on upbringing. I know upbringing is part of it. I'm trying to support the notion that genes might be too.

[martinemonster.livejournal.com]

Fine, sure I'll agree. It might have something to do with it. *grumble*

But if so, I'd like to see those results. Oh yes, I would.