Oops…I fell

This feeling I’ve had for months has had a sudden growth spurt: I’m falling for someone and I don’t know what to do about it. Thoughts of him won’t leave my head and when I sleep, I dream about him. I can’t escape it and I can’t say, “Oh, I’ll worry about this tomorrow” because I know tomorrow it’s just going to be even stronger. This isn’t supposed to happen. I usually have much better control over these things and I can usually turn it on or off at any moment…but not this time. It’s late. I’m tired. Thoughts of why it would and wouldn’t work keep racing through my head. I’m trying to be logical about this, but my logic isn’t helping me with this one. I could turn to math and write a formula to predict the results of all of this. If the outcome shows that it would all go to hell, it wouldn’t matter because I would still feel this way. If the outcome shows that it would just get better, this would only grow and I’m terrified by that. I wish that I could articlate how much this person inspires me to be a better person and how much I admire him but I don’t have the words. Ugh. What to do?

A Dozen Rules of Life

1. You get what you’re born with; sometimes what you really want isn’t in the cards.
2. You have to work with what you’re given, not against it.
3. You can’t fight your style.
4. Beauty is not sold in a bottle, nor is it free.
5. $15 cut, $250 style; you get what you pay for.
6. No matter where you go, you take your hair and yourself with you.
7. CHONS: we’re all the same combination of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur.
8. Take care of your hair and yourself; it’s all you have.
9. It’s not just hair…it’s not just your body, it’s your responsibility.
10. You can go back, but it won’t be the same. Ergo, you can’t go back.
11. Do what you can with what you have while you can.
12. What you put in your body shows. What you put in, you get back.

I Don’t Want It

I have been thinking about this dream that I had last night all day totay. There was this guy telling me about his experience with relationships and all that kind of stuff. The dream ended abruptly as he said to me, “I don’t want it.” It’s clear that this person in the dream is me and I was honest enough to admit to myself that I do not want a relationship right now and I might never want one in the future. This might be the explanation for why I have never been in a relationship or it might not. Either way, I feel that I have come to some resolution on the issue and reached a point of denouement.

This Makes Four

Saturday, September 15, 2007:     I went to Denver to shake off everything that has been wearing my head for the past few months and found a very pleasant surprise. It was one of those things that are right under your nose and you don’t even know it. This was right in front of me all along and I could see it, but I wasn’t sure if I was seeing things clearly. My running partner seems to have developed a secret crush for me over the past few months, which totally threw me off guard since I’m not really what he looks for. He asked me if I had thought about being with him. When I finally admitted to it, he asked, “Why didn’t you ever say anything?” I just didn’t want to screw things up. Over the past couple months I have grown closer to him as a friend than I have ever been with any man before and I can honestly say that he is my best friend. An equally interesting question, “Why didn’t he say anything before Saturday night?”

In one thousand words:

Empirical Process:

What the hell is going on? I have voluntarily thrown logic out the window for this one. I just want to jump into this head first even though I’m not ready. I woke up this morning wondering if I’m going to be good for him and if he can deal with my social awkwardness, and demanding personality. He knows me, so he knows what he’s getting into. I’m a little scared because I have entertained the idea that someday I will want to share this with my family, but it will be incredibly difficult since I’m not out to my family. My family knows I’m gay, but we have never discussed it openly. I never really saw the point of the possibility of talking about it until now.

But has he changed his mind? He said he would call me and two days went by without a call. I know it sounds needy, but I was kind of worried about how he was recovering from Saturday night (there was a lot of drinking) and he took a certain drug. It’s just not like him not to call. So I called him and left a voicemail message. Still no call back, but a text message. That’s out of character too. He always returns my calls. In the text message, he referred to me as “buddy.” Hmmm… does anyone call their boyfriend “buddy”? He and I had already discussed this a few weeks ago and the answer is no. Maybe things have changed – this is exactly what I’m afraid of. I have been telling myself for the past two days that it’s okay if he wants to back out, but when I actually think about it, it’s not okay. I don’t want another experience where someone asks me to be their boyfriend and then just changes their mind a day or two later. This has happened with every guy I’ve dated. It’s not okay. What does this text message and the fact that he hasn’t called mean? Probably nothing, but it’s out of character so I’m going to prepare myself either way.

What’s the investment? Three years ago, I met JR in Denver. I fell for him and I didn’t even know it until it was over. We knew each other for a few weeks and he made me think for the first time, “I like this. I like being gay. I want this.” He inspired me to be the person I am and he showed me the person I could be. Everything he every said was piercing and unforgettable because he was so perceptive. He showed me exactly what I want and for the first time, I knew exactly what I want. For the past three years, I have been searching for a new JR. Well, someone exactly like him, or at least close. _____ and I have known each other for a while and the moment I met him, I thought, “This could quite possibly be what I have been looking for.” A few months after we briefly met, I saw him at Statik, a club in Fort Collins. I think we were both trashed. We had our first hello, our first conversation, our first meaningful glance. There was electricity. There were sparks. There was definitely something here. We parted ways and arranged to meet a few days later and ended up becoming running partners. Our friendship was effortless and completely open.

Now I’m lying in bed trying to figure things out. I’m acting this insecure because the thought of losing my best friend over the awkward aftermath of a steamy, drunken weekend seems like a possibility. Even though the circumstances under which things started might have been a little different, I don’t think they are wrong. I don’t think the decision to be together is wrong.

I’m mainly afraid of losing another JR. I can’t do it. Considering that every guy who has ever been my ‘boyfriend’ changed his mind soon after they asked me, I think my insecurity is valid. I don’t have it in me to go through that again and come out of it without a maladaptive relationship viewpoint. I won’t do that again and I can’t lose my best friend, my running partner and JR again.

Results

I had a feeling that he would change his mind the next day, but I assumed that he would at least let me know rather than not call for four days and leave me hanging. I wish that we could forget this weekend ever happened and go back, but I know that you can never go back. Since that’s the case, I would like to move forward beyond this. He keeps saying that he’s going to call and doesn’t. He didn’t return my text message and I have no idea why he’s doing this. Is he embarrassed? Angry? I don’t get it and I can’t believe he’s doing this. Even harder for me to believe is that this is happening again. This makes four consecutive experiences of exactly the same situation. I don’t think anyone could possibly understand how much this hurts. I know everyone has had their share of struggles and breakups, but I don’t think anyone has experienced breaking up one or two days afterward again and again. This makes four times. I’m not going to recover from this.

What has this done?

If this hadn’t happened four times in a row with every guy who has ever expressed significant interest, I could easily let it go. That’s not the case. There is apparently something extremely wrong with me. As a result, I will never pursue another man and I will never allow myself to be pursued. This isn’t entirely my decision. This is what the world has given me and I have nothing else to go by and nothing else on which to base future experiences.

Four times. Wow.

Labyrinth Revisited

Time stops and the world moves with you when your mind is still. When you find center, your eyes will open to see everything from every angle.

As I revisited the labyrinth in the botanic gardens today, I realized that life is really only as confusing as you make it. People often say that you carry yourself with you wherever you go. I used to think this was a negative thing. I have always tried so hard to leave myself behind no matter where I have gone. These days, it’s a little different. I see this as a good thing and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I was kind of apprehensive to revisit the labyrinth since I was last there with Keith. In a way, I felt that he took this place from me. The labyrinth is my sanctuary and the only thing that keeps me going in Cheyenne and I took it back today.

Was Traum Darf Kommen [Wahr]

What Dreams May Come [True]

Some pyschologists believe that dreams are the mind’s way of explaining your life or consolidating information in a way that makes the most sense. The fact that we can’t control our dreams is probably for the best since we are unable to affect them and distort their meaning.

Last night, I dreamed that I was visiting Germany with JR. He dropped me off at a spa to get a chemical peel and a facial one evening. It was my birthday. After the facial, he wasn’t around so I meandered through the streets of Germany without him. I ended up buying a laptop in Germany exactly like the one I have now. A moment later, I was back in Cheyenne. I went to return a printer that came with the laptop and my car just wouldn’t go. I was really pushing the gas hard and it was still moving slowly. I finally made it to the store and they decided to give me another printer and a Wii free. This was useless to me since I don’t play games – especially not video games.

On my way out of the store, JR was suddenly 20 years younger and the image of my dream guy: tall, chin length gorgeous chocolate brunette hair, fit, European face (kind of French/ kind of German looking), etc. He was with someone else. This guy was short, bulky, very macho looking and a lot more masculine than I am. JR said to me, ”How can we almost fall in love and then you just walk away? I could have fallen for you.” I didn’t know what to say. I wanted to say that I would miss him, but I didn’t. I just kind of started crying and I remember feeling that I wasn’t going to just move on and let this one go. Instead, he kept stepping farther away back just the way I would when I have been betrayed. And I woke up. 

What it means:

Dreaming about JR refers to a time in my life when adulthood didn’t interfere with my romantic interests. There is excitement, spontaneity, and youth lacking in my current state in life. The fact that he took me to a spa means that I need to let go of a lot of the defensiveness that I have been bringing into my most recent potential relationships. Being in a spa also indicates my concern for appearance and beauty and that I might be trying too hard, deception or some sort of cover-up. It could also mean that I am taking on a new outlook toward life. Or maybe I need to take time out to pamper myself and wash away old secrets, pains and guilt. It’s time to let my emotions out and begin healing and become a fresh, new person. This I need to start trusting again. I think that since I dreamt that he and I visited Europe means that I am revisiting old ways of thinking. But the fact that it was my birthday in this dream signifies that I am celebrating who I am and coming to terms with myself as a person.

Dreaming about a computer suggests that I am experiencing a lack of individuality and ability to express emotions and feelings. The fact that I was trying to return a printer says that I am having trouble expressing my thoughts in a way that others can understand…which is probably how I ended up with TWO printers in the end when I didn’t even want one of them. While I was driving to return the printer, the fact that I was driving a car describes my ambition and drive to move from one stage in life to another and my level of active control to get to wherever I’m heading. Since my car wasn’t moving quickly enough, it shows that I am spending too much energy and need to slow down so that I don’t burn out by taking on more than I can handle.

When I left the store to return my printer, JR’s car was parked can go two ways: Either I need to turn my efforts and energies elsewhere or I might be pursuing something that just isn’t going to work out. In this case, it would be trying to find someone significant in my life. It’s just not going to happen. It could also mean that I need to slow down and enjoy whatever is in front of me. All of this took place at night, which suggests that there are major setbacks and obstacles in achieving my goals. I know exactly what these are: living in Cheyenne and having a job that pays practically nothing. It means that I should put everything aside and come back to it later for a new beginning. Does this mean I should abandon my plans right now and come back to them later? Maybe I’ll take a break in January to travel or something.

The part of this dream that I don’t like is the video game symbolism. Receiving a video game could represent my ability to manipulate others OR that I am trying to avoid confronting the stresses and problems in my real life. While I do have the ability to manipulate people, I always choose not to. It violates a major rule in my life, which is: DO NOT PLAY GAMES – EVER. Another rule I have is not to be avoidant. Both of these rules are listed clearly in one of my other blogs posted as a webpage. Ultimately, I think this means that I might think that I have no control over my actions and refuse to take responsibility for them. I have a major problem with that. I think that it actually means that I am not taking responsibility for my life and I am not being mindful of the experience and reactions of others. I am truly sorry for this and in the end, it’s only hurting me.

Dreaming of love means that I have carried intense feelings from a waking relationship into my dreams. It also means that I might not be getting enough love in my daily life and long to be accepted. However, this was not love. This was ALMOST love. This could have been, but wasn’t. This was more about regret than it was about love.

This dream really allowed me to regain some balance by recognizing my fear and frustration, rather than repressing my feelings. I actually let my defenses down in this dream and release some things that I have been keeping to myself. However, JR was unresponsive to this in my dream just like the guys from this summer have been. I really tried to open up to two guys this summer and it was as though everything they said and everything I sad was falling on deaf ears.

Overall, I think this dream means that I need to be more direct. It was a deeply spiritually cleaning experience last night.

 

 

Buy Back

Sometimes I really wish that I were wrong about everything. I wish I were wrong that my life is going nowhere and that I’ll be alone my entire life, but I’m not. I wish that I were wrong that I’m ugly and that I am nothing that anyone would want or that I have nothing to offer anyone. Unfortunately, this is all true. I would like to say that I’m ‘on track’ and that I’m following all the rules of life that are supposed to get you where you need to be. I warned myself that I wouldn’t be able to hear all the things that have been said to me then next time I hear them from someone else because the guys before were lying. Apparently, I wasn’t wrong about that either. It turns out that even the most recent things said to me were lies. I guess I’m smart enough to see it, but not smart enough to believe it. I keep hoping that maybe the next time, they will mean it. They won’t.

I guess that fact that I will be single my entire life is a combination of default and ineligibility for interest from other guys. I am adding to this combination the fact that this is going to be a conscious choice from now on. I can’t deal with another intense attraction being nothing more than another let down. The way things are now is the way things will always be. There’s nothing more that I can do to change this. I feel like I’m working as hard as I can in every aspect of my life and it’s getting me nowhere. There’s something that I’m not ‘getting’ that everyone else seems to understand. I’m done. I don’t know why I care and I don’t know why I should try anymore.

What I really don’t understand is why someone would say things that they don’t mean. It really hurts and I can’t listen to it anymore in the future. It makes me really sad that it has come to this and I have been so let down by the world. And what makes me even more sad, is that I have to accept responsibility for this.

Protected: Borderline

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

The Effects of Jury Composition on Jury Reasoning

Brad Frey

Dr. Narina Nunez

Psychology and Law

University of Wyoming, 1999

(My very first publication! Give me a break, I was 15)

Abstract

The goal of this study is aimed to retrieve information regarding the composition of a jury. The information this research aspired to retrieve is determining the composition’s affect on the jury at large, as well as how jury composition affects the verdict reached. We have examined how the jury has been affected by the distribution of reasoning levels of jurors in this study. The results in this study exposed that a juror that contributes a higher reasoning level affects the jury by raising the collective reasoning level, thereby affecting the verdict. When jury reasoning levels are higher, the verdict will be less harsh than the verdict of a low reasoning level jury (according to the hypothesis).

The purpose of the present study is to test the reasoning level of the jury. Kuhn (1994) developed a method of coding a juror’s responses and deliberations in order to test the reasoning of jurors. We used Kuhn’s method of coding in this study to determine the reasoning level of jurors. In Kuhn’s method of coding, she explains that there are four functions of reasoning. The four functions defined by Kuhn are used to determine a juror’s reasoning level. These four functions are:

1. Justifying the chosen verdict. This is considered by Kuhn to be a low-level reasoning task because an individual supporting their own opinion is a display of instinct rather than a display of reason or logic.

2. Discounting an alternative verdict. Discounting an alternative verdict is simply deprecating another individual’s opinion or chosen verdict.

3. Discounting the chosen verdict. This is considered to be a high level reasoning task because it shows that the individual is objective and unbiased regarding the opinions of others or alternative verdicts as well as the ability to recognize fault in their own logic.

4. Supporting an alternative verdict. This also represents a high reasoning level because it shows that a person no only acknowledges another point of view, but they can also rationalize for another person, which demonstrates that the individual is able to understand as well as support another person’s point of view or verdict.

Some jurors advanced beyond the four functions defined by Kuhn and engaged in what is known as the Socratic Questioning technique. Although these jurors were likely not aware of this behavior, they used this type of questioning innately or unconsciously as a method of argument while deliberating. This technique is used to incite a person to generate a more correct statement. Socrates used this method to reveal inconsistencies in a person’s logic. The three primary lines of question one can use in this technique are:

1. Questions that reveal overgeneralization.

2. Questions that reveal a person’s lack of evidence

3. Questions that reveal a false label

In this study, questions identified as implementing Socratic questioning are regarded as “queries.” The queries are questions that have some intent of provoking thought to another juror. These queries may have an implied assertion with justification in question form, which validates them to be included as a unit, even those they are simply questions. Units will be discussed further in the materials and procedure section.

During jury deliberation, the jury’s goal is to reach a unanimous verdict. The outcome of the jury’s verdict is influenced by jurors’ reasoning ability. The hypothesis suggests that the jury composition will affect the overall reasoning level of the jury. The composition of a jury is determined by the distribution of each individual juror’s reasoning levels. Since the reasoning levels of each individual varies, the hypothesis declares that the reasoning level of the entire jury will be influenced by a variety of reasoning levels.

The main question being researched is: Does a jury’s composition (being the independent variable) affect the reasoning level of the jury? The hypothesis suggests that the jury’s reasoning level is dependent upon the jury’s composition. The focus of this study is to scrutinize mock jurors’ deliberations to determine whether the jury composition will affect the reasoning level of the jury.

Also, by investigation the results of a jury’s composition as ‘mostly high’ or ‘mostly low’ or ’split,’ the verdict can actually be determined before the verdict has been decided. This will predict the verdict that a jury with opposite reasoning levels would most likely choose. The premise is that a person with a low reasoning level might not consider alternatives, but a person with a high reasoning level will be more objective toward alternatives. Also, a person with a low reasoning level might choose a more harsh verdict than a person with a higher reasoning level. This means that a person with a low reasoning level has greater potential to have a stronger negativity bias than a person with a higher reasoning level.

Method

Participants

Sixty-six students (twenty-two (22) males and forty-four (44) females) participated in this study, which is the equivalent of eleven juries. These students were enrolled at a “Rocky Mountain University.” Each student participated in this experiment to fulfill partial course requirements.

Materials and Procedure

Those who participated watch an edited video of an actual trial. This video consisted of the prosecution and defendant’s opening statements, fulltestimonies of two key witenesses and closing statements. each juror was also presented with written summaries of all other testimonies relevant to the trial. Having seen the video of the trial, each person was instructed to deliberate in a mock jury.

Each of the eleven jury were instructed on the law and reasonable doubt standards to reach a verdict. Each jury was also instructed on the possible verdicts for this trial. After they has seen the trial, the previously stated topics were explained to the jury. The four possible verdicts for this case were:

1. Manslaughter

2. First-degree murder

3. Second-degree murder

4. Self-defense (not guilty)

A foreperson was selected for each jury. Mock jurors then deliberated for one hour and their goal during this hour of deliberation was to reach a unanimous verdict for this trial. The participants were assembled in groups of approximately six people.

The deliberation of each jury was recorded. After each jury deliberated, their deliberations were transcribed. Each transcript was coded by Kuhn’s method of coding. First, the transcripts were separated by units. Kuhn defines a unit as containing an assertion and any noted justification relevant to the unit. However, a unit can vary in lenght and have no justification. A unit can range from one sentence to a paragraph in length. After the transcripts had been separated into units, the units were coded according to Kuhn’s functions of reasoning, which were described previously.

Each function is then given a numerical representational value. Justifying the chosen verdict was given a value of one. Discounting an alternative verdict was given a value of two. Discounting the chosen verdict was given a value of three. Supporting an alternative verdict was given a value of four. These values represent the reasoning level of a juror. The total number of functions of each individual juror were added together to represent the collective reasoning level of the jury.

The reasoning level of each juror was combined with the other jurors to find the sum of the reasoning levels of the jurors (collective reasoning level). An average was found for the eleven juries, which determines an estimated reasoning level of each individual juror. The reasoning level was either high or low. If an individual’s reasoning level is above average, they have a high reasoning level. If an individual’s reasoning level is below average, they are considered to have a low reasoning level.

Results

The results show that eight of the eleven juries chose manslaughter as their verdict. The only jury that chose ‘not guilty (self defense)’ as their verdict was a jury with a completely high reasoning level (there were no reasoning level jurors in this group). Thus, the research supports the hypothesis that a high level jury will choose a less harsh verdict than juries with a low reasoning level. However, there were two juries with a low reasoning level that chose a less harsh verdict than some of the high reasoning level juries. Also, there were two high reasoning level juries that chose a verdict that was more harsh than all the other juries. The two juries that chose the most harsh verdicts had predominantly high reasoning levels. One jury of a three-three split in reasoning levels (three high reasoning levels and three low reasoning levels) also chose manslaughter, which was the most commonly chosen verdict for this trial. Six of the nine juries who chose less harsh verdicts also had high reasoning level jury compositions.

Discussion

Since jury reasoning levels may vary in different cases, compositions and environmental settings, the distribution of reasoning levels of a jury will reflectively vary. Since these reasoning levels vary, the research may (or may not) simply be retrieving information about the reasoning level in a group setting and neglecting the reasoning level of an individual in a different setting. This note indicates that the experiment is based on a quasi-experimental-design. Since the research is only retrieving information about a group setting, only an individual’s reasoning level in a group setting is disclosed, which might not accurately reflect their own reasoning level.

Does an individual’s reasoning level affect the reasoning level of the entire jury? Does the reasoning level of a jury affect the reasoning level of an individual? Perhaps they affect one another mutually. One speculation derived from this experiment is that being in a jury (or group setting) will alter an individual’s behavior, thereby altering their apparent reasoning level, thus altering the overall composition of the jury. An individuals’ reasoning level may fluctuate during the deliberation process, which might cause the jury’s collective reasoning level to fluctuate as well.

As a group’s number increases, it becomes more polymorphous than before. Diversification of a group allows different viewpoints to surface, which greatly heightens the entire group’s reasoning level. As the group grows larger, the reasoning level will change as more cognitive resources are available. The cognitive resources are considerably greater in a jury of twelve, compard to a jury of six (Horowitz, 1998). Essentially, the point is that the jury composition will vary. As it varies, the jury’s reasoning level will vary accordingly. In a smaller jury, a person may be more myopic to the convictions within their own jury. As the group’s number increases, more viewpoints are presented, which heightens the reasoning level of each jury.

Even though a jury’s number and deliberation might increase, it does not mean that they are reasoning at a higher or lower level. It might be the same level at which they were always reasoning or functioning. The level of reasoning depends upon how astute each juror is. A more diverse scope of thought (provided by more jurors presented to a jury will heighten the reasoning level of a jury.

Variables affecting the jury’s composition may be those such as an individual’s tendency to rationalize, forget, embellish or having selective attention. These things vary among jurors and these different factors among individuals affect the jury’s composition. If a juror’s reasoning level is affected by the group, the reasoning level of the entire jury will change. If a juror doesn’t fully comprehend the task or subject, their reasoning ability will be lower and the jury’s reasoning level will also be lower. The reasoning level of an individual (and jury) depends upon how each individual receives and processes or accounts for the information that they have received. The behavior of some individuals may represent (through their reasoning ability) how determined they are to reach a verdict. A juror who isn’t involved or concerned with the verdict may demonstrate through their participation, or lack thereof, that their easoning level is low. Perhaps they don’t feel the need to reason at a higher level in a jury because the verdict will be reached whether they reason at their paramount reasoning level or if they engage in social loafing or passive aggressive behavior.

Another speculation derived from this experiment is that the reasoning level of an individual may very well be a conscious effort rather than an inherent quality. If a juror feels that a verdict will be reached regardless of their participation, they may not exert a conscious effort to use their full reasoning ability. They will rather consciously enforce a barrier to avoide participating in deliberation because they might feel insignificant.

References

Kuhn, D., weinstock, M., & Flaton, R. (1994). How well do Jurors Reason? Competence Dimensions of Individual Variation in a Juror Reasoning Task. Psychological Science. 289-296.

Horowitz, I.A., Willging, T.E., Bordens, K.S. (1998). The Psychology of Law. new York, N.Y. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

*copyright 1999

I’ve Moved

I’ve been here on WordPress for a while, but I have decided to make this site my new home. It’s kind of embarrassing to say that I was originally at myspace and the step up commit to a more refined blogspot has been long overdue. There’s just so much tension and clutter on myspace…and people often take things personally. Really, nothing is directed at anyone unless I directly mention their name. It seems that a lot of things that I mean to say to someone or that someone means to say to me are posted on myspace rather than telling me in person or on the phone, which implies that people don’t have to own what they say. Whether it’s something wonderful or something hurtful, it should be said in person and blogging shouldn’t absolve all responsibility for it. That takes all the fun out of life and makes it difficult to grow with someone, but makes it incredibly easy to drive an unintentional wedge between people. It’s tragic and kind of hurts.

For example, there’s this guy that I REALLY like…more than anyone I think I will ever meet and I’m afraid he took this bulletin posted on myspace personally. Ugh. Now I don’t know what to do. He has probably given up on me over a total misunderstanding. *Sigh* Damn you myspace! Damn me for posting that! I should have had the foresight to think that it might be taken the wrong way.