Annoying

by Joe Palca and Flora Lichtman

     This book is like an extended NPR feature, a fashionable science book for the masses.  In this way, it reminded me of Quiet.  In some cases, however, I was able to put to use my high school vocabulary and studies from courses such as anatomy and chemistry.  There is no official branch of science dealing with annoyance, but this book compiles applicable research from a varied scientific disciplines, ranging from psychology to biology.  These topical changes, as well as the conversational tone, help keep the reader's attention.
   
     General Thesis:  Sounds, smells, habits, and even tastes can annoy humans.  It is difficult to find an agreed-upon scientific definition of emotion, much less annoyance, but the basic recipe appears to include:
    1.  Uncontrollable
    2.  Distracting or unpleasant
    3.  Unpredictable, often including an unknown duration

     Skunk Spray:  An example of an annoying smell is skunk spray.  Part of the annoyance seems to be cognitive and learned.  As anecdotal evidence, one woman's mother said, "Oh, what a pleasant smell!" and to this day, her daughter does not mind the smell of skunk spray.  In a blind smell test, subjects reacted differently to identical samples labeled with cognitively unpleasant sources.  "Parmesan cheese" received a positive rating, while the same scent labeled as "vomit" received a negative reaction.
     From a more biological perspective, the smell of skunk spray comes from "sulfur-laden molecule called thiols" (p.62).  Thiols are associated with decay of living materials, such as food.  In low concentrations they can be pleasing, as in coffee or wine.
     The olfactory epithelium has receptors which receive molecules from air. If molecules remain in the receptor long enough, olfactory fatigue causes neurons to stop firing, leading the brain to believe the odor is gone.  This is why the old-fashioned tomato juice method seemed effective.  After spending so much time washing their pets, owners didn't smell the odor as strongly.  There is, however, an effective remedy, using hydrogen peroxide to create a chemical reaction.  Oxidation produces a disulfide when hydrogen peroxide reacts with the thiols.  Baking soda is also a helpful ingredient.

Fun Vocab:

• Hedonic Reversal--Enjoying something that may be considered inherently painful or characterized by negative emotions.  For example, riding a roller coaster can be a positive experience, despite the negative emotion of fear.  People willingly eat chili peppers, even though it produces a burning sensation in the mouth.
• Electrophiles--Compounds that try to share electrons, found in many chemical irritants.
• TRPA1--"trip-a-one"--transient receptor potential A1--a receptor in all invertebrates and vertebrates for chemical irritants

Annoying Features:  Typos.

• p.19--"We've gotten a lot of letters from people who put them in coworkers' offices and gotten a lot of entertainment value out of them."
• p.66--"Kingsley is trying track down..."
• p.137-138--Switches repeatedly between Ungar and Unger

Also, p.68 says, "Certainly, red i a color that elicit a kind of annoyance that matadors in Spanish bull rings are professionally familiar with."  This has been busted by MythBusters.  Bulls are color blind for red and green; the movement draws their attention.

• http://www.livescience.com/33700-bulls-charge-red.html
• http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/color-red-makes-bulls-go-ballistic/

Summer Reading

The Spell Book of Listen Taylor
    The style of this book is similar to Neil Gaiman's The Graveyard Book because it is very straightforward.  The lack of emotion in the tone produces a feeling of detachment and contributes to the unrealistic and bizarre nature of the narration.  Devices such as personification add beauty, but are also part of the unusual style.  For example, the first sentence, "After midnight, the apartment waited, still in the moonlight and the heat," is rather typical.  Yet Jaclyn Moriarty takes it a step further with the words, "A moth touched its wing to the front porch light, and the apartment cleared its throat sharply."  Furthermore, the next two sentences describe a "sleepy confusion of boxes" and a ladder laying on its stomach, a virtual explosion of personification.
      This is one of my least favorite books.  I kept reading it because I like to finish what I start...and, partially, I did want to see how everything fit together.  The main reason for this is the unusual tone, but in addition, it seems that everyone in the book is having an affair with someone.  I assume that this is part of the themes related to secrecy and privacy, but it also seems to reflect our society's casual acceptance of adultery.  Due to the style of writing, the reader does not feel a connection to the characters.  I did, however, appreciate the author's skill in weaving together the abundance of seemingly unrelated facts and story lines, only fully explaining it toward the end.
     After writing this post, I looked up reviews.  I think that the NY Times review explains a lot about my opinions.  Essentially, it describes this book as an adult book that may not really interest teenagers...I haven't been a teen for several years, and it doesn't especially interest me.  It also mentions the "sometimes foolhardy" women...another reason I didn't like the characters.  I don't think the "sometimes" was a necessary part of that phrase.

Adrift
     Adrift is the fictional story of 5 teenagers adrift on the Atlantic Ocean, yet it also includes layers of storytelling such as an initially unknown past traumatic experience shared by Matt and John.  The two working class boys meet three rich friends on the beach, a contrast that exists throughout the story.  JoJo and his girlfriend, Estefania, are visitors from Brazil.  Driana, who catches Matt's eye, invites Matt and John to a party in her family's mansion. After the party, the teens discover that Estefania has gone out windsurfing at night and set out in a neighbor's boat to rescue her.  Unfortunately, they do not have enough gas to return to shore...Major themes of the novel include the cost of survival, the consequences of guilt, and the effect of trauma on relationships.
   
Running Out of Time
     One of Margaret Peterson Haddix's first books, Running Out of Time still includes her signature plot twists, but seems a bit less complicated than her other books.  Also characteristic of Haddix, the historical details and perspectives come to life naturally through careful attention to detail.  I was also surprised by the overall frightening experience of Jessie in our world, including encounters with drunken and apparently lustful males (though not a graphic or objectionable scene for young readers), the skepticism of the media, and the at times illogical functioning of the justice and social services systems.
     

1984

     When I began AP summer reading and had to read How to Read Literature Like a Professor, I was shocked when the author claimed that there is only one story.  He described how many works follow a common pattern.  As I read 1984, I truly understood that.  Since I've already read Anthem, Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World, I began to feel like I'd overdosed on dystopian novels because I noticed all the similarities.  Anthem is my favorite, but in terms of which is the best literary work, I'm not really sure.  I just know it's not Fahrenheit 451.
     There is one quote in 1984 that stuck out to me, especially the last sentence.  "The book fascinated him, or more exactly it reassured him.  In a sense it told him nothing new, but that was part of the attraction.  It said what he would have said, if it had been possible for him to set his scattered thoughts in order.  It was the product of a mind similar to his own, but enormously more powerful, more systematic, less fear-ridden.  The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already."

Lindke and Lecture 23: The Answers

     Questions:  Does Lecture 22 apply only before conversion?  Can contrition proceed from love of God, as in a person being sorry they sinned against the very God who died for them?
     According to Lindke's paper, "Apology, Article XII (V):  Of Repentance," repentance has two parts:

• Contrition:  Terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin 
• Faith:  Believes that, for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience and delivers from terrors

     Repentance can be described in two ways:

• Stricte dicta:  Contrition
• Late dicta:  Contrition and faith

     Lecture 23 states, "One of the principal reasons why many at this point mingle Law and Gospel is that they fail to distinguish the daily repentance of Christians from the repentance which precedes faith."  At all times, contrition can be defined as "being bruised or crushed" (Lindke quotes Our Great Heritage).  What Walther is pointing to with his distinction is that "because Christians are both sinners and saints, their faith in the Gospel can have an ameliorating effect on the fear inherent in their contrition.  The dominant emotion then can become sorrow, based not on terror before the God of judgment, but on the knowledge that we have offended the gracious Lord of our salvation (Lindke)."  However, Lindke goes on to caution against focusing too much on this differentiation, saying, "While this distinction has validity and value in understanding the sorrow contrite Christians feel, it tends to relegate God's law to a secondary position in contrition.  Walther's statement stands:  'Contrition is solely an effect of the Law.'  David was crushed when Nathan said, 'You are the man,' not when he said, 'The Lord has taken away your sin.'"
      Walther writes, "David had contrition together with faith.  That is, indeed, a sacrifice with which God is pleased.  Contrition of this kind is not a mere effect of the Law, produced by the Law alone, but it is at the same time an operation of the Gospel.  By the Gospel the love of God enters a person's heart, and when contrition proceeds from love of God, it is indeed a truly sweet sorrow, acceptable to God."  I typed this quote before reading Lindke's article; when I came back to it today, my ears perked up.  To me, this sounds like Walther is distinguishing repentance stricte dicta from late dicta.

Short Answer:  Before conversion, contrition cannot proceed from love of God.  Afterward, it may be seasoned with love, but this is not necessary.  The bottom line is that contrition is an effect of the law.

Vocab:
Ameliorate:  to make better, improve

Lecture 22: Short and Sweet

     Short Summary:  Thesis XI attacks the false teaching that contrition is worthless if it comes from fear of God's wrath and punishment rather than love for God.
     Commentary:  At first, this made no sense to me; how would you be contrite out of love?  As it turns out, that's the point.  The idea is that we should be sorry for sins because we have love for God in our hearts (point:  we have good hearts) rather than a selfish fear of punishment.  The clearest Biblical examples refuting this are the jailer at Philippi and the crowd at Pentecost.  Before conversion, there is no love for God in our hearts; they are hostile rather than good.
     As I began writing this post, I started to wonder if this applies to us only before conversion; after conversion, can we be sorry for our sins because they hurt God?  Well, let's begin with four pertinent details of Lecture 22 to provide a background for investigation.
    After conversion, the Law doesn't stop working.  It still acts as a mirror; Romans 3: 20 states, "Through the law we become conscious of sin."  Walther comments, "Here the apostle states the function of the Law:  it produces, not love, but the knowledge of sin."  He also later writes, "Even when there is love of God in a person's heart, it will be spoiled by the devil."  Walther quotes the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, "When we speak de contritione, that is, regarding genuine contrition, we cut out those innumerable questions which they cast up, viz., whether a person's contrition flows from love of God or from fear of punishment.  For these are nothing but mere words and a useless babbling of persons who have never experienced the state of mind of a terrified conscience.  But we say that contrition is the true terror of conscience, when it begins to feel its sin and the anger of God against sin and is sorry for having sinned."
     With that said, I'm not going to answer the questions yet.  Lecture 23, which I've read, expands upon the subject, and I also want to check out a paper from the WLS Essay file, Rev. Allen Lindke's "Apology, Article XII (V):  Of Repentance."
     Vocab:  

Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμα μου = Touto mou estin to soma = (literal translation) "This is the body of me," Jesus' words in the Lord's Supper

Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata = We are ever striving after what is forbidden, and coveting what is denied us.

Lectures 20 and 21

     I have once again picked up Walther's Law and Gospel, this time with a new reading strategy based on a teacher's advice.  I am trying to read it like other books, not study, but here are some highlights.
     Lecture 20 describes "faith unfeigned," genuine faith, while dispatching the false doctrine that faith, once present, cannot be lost.  Genuine faith is not simply believing that the Bible's teachings are true; living faith changes the heart.
     Lecture 21 presents two explanations of justification.  I've written them as equations.
Catholic:  Faith + Love = Justification
Lutheran:  Faith = Justification, then Faith → Love
    In chemistry, → means "yields;" Walther would probably say "produces."  Faith yields love and good works, but they are not what gives it power to justify.  At one point, I wondered why it mattered what came when; if faith naturally produces love, who cares when justification takes place?  The problem is that if I believe I am justified partially by the love, or good works, that I add to faith, I am relying on work righteousness.  The burden of salvation is on me, and though I can't carry it, I don't look to the One who can.
     The analogy that drove Lecture 21 home for me was that of an apple tree.  You don't add apples (love) to an apple tree (faith); the tree simply produces them!  I'd heard the second part of this analogy before, but not the first.
Vocab:
     Forma:  The quality that makes something what it is.  The forma of applesauce is apples.  According to Catholic teaching, love is the forma of faith.
     Fides Formata:  According to Catholic teaching, faith with the proper form; that is, faith with love added to it.
     Fides Informis:  According to Catholic teaching, faith without the proper form; that is, faith without love added to it.

All These Years Never Heard It Like This

Book:  Mere Christianity

Author:  C.S. Lewis

     I read this book on high alert because I was acutely aware that C.S. Lewis is not a confessional, orthodox, conservative Lutheran.  Reading theology books by unreliable sources can be more dangerous than reading secular authors' writing, so I attempted to constantly evaluate what I read.  I wish I could discuss this with a reliable person...I should work on that.  I can truly understand why this book would be perfect for a discussion group to read together.  Overall, though, I agreed with most of the things he said.  In Walther's Law and Gospel, I'm on Lecture 20, and some of the points he makes give me a little deja vu, flashbacks to the C.S. Lewis ideas that redesigned my thought process.

     There were parts of this book that really hit hard.  Several of the sections were painful to read because they were just way too true in my life.  A lot of the chapters challenged false perceptions that I didn't know I had. In some sections, he explained things I already knew, but I'd never quite thought of them in the same way.  The different perspective gave them power, and they made an impact.  For example, C.S. Lewis reminds us that God cares about our hearts, what kind of people we are becoming, not just our outward actions.  In more theological terms, God looks at the heart.  In another chapter, Lewis focuses on the idea that much of the "goodness" that we see in ourselves is a result of things God gave us, such as our temperament or our environments, past and present.  We can't see the difference between goodness produced by the Holy Spirit and this influenced goodness, but God can.  I may not get angry with a family member because God gave me a calm temperament, but if a person who is naturally explosive keeps his cool, it is more significant.  I'm not exactly sure about the theological reliability of this second idea, so I'll investigate the Bible, hopefully have a conversation, and compose an update.
     Before I close this post, I'd like to mention that the first section of this book reminds me of many of the themes of Lee Strobel's books.  It is another logical approach to something that ultimately defies human comprehension, but that doesn't mean it isn't valuable or useful.
     In general summary, this book is beneficial for anyone to read.  It may have resulted from radio broadcasts designed to introduce people to Christianity, but it also has more than enough material for Christians of all maturites to chew on.