Just Egocentric

I'm not going to force myself to write something deep. I'm just going to type. I didn't get to see Steve Ballmer talk yesterday, but apparently our MBA intern from Stanford - who I mentioned slightly lets his degree and school go to his head, got up at the end during Q&A to ask Steve Ballmer a question. Apparently the question was prefaced with... "Hello Steve, my name is... I'm an MBA intern here from Stanford University, so I know what I'm talking about." When I heard that, I could not believe it. I had a conversation with him later in the day to talk to give him my opinions on the problem he is working on. I had it very well drawn out for him and he also has an electrical engineering background so i put it in those terms... showing how what he is working on is an unstable feedback-based system, and just like a circuit, he can solve the problem by using the same techniques we would use in electrical engineering to make it more stable. Its not a circuit at all, its actually a very big process, but you'll find that somehow everything can be represented by sine waves, and thus solved using similar techniques. Anyway, I think he understood, but he tried to convince me that I was off track. I'm pretty much done with him.

I tried to think of an exception to representing things like sine waves, and of course the first major exception that came to mind is love. Love isn't rational, so can't be solved with rational means. I find myself to be a rational person, so I rely more on my ego (I had a great conversation with someone about this last night). However, love depends on emotion and impulse and is guided more by the id. I'll define both soon. So being that there are these different driving forces... where do two people have to fall to make a good balanced connection? Perhaps I'm still relying on my ego in trying to solve this problem... but maybe a good relationship requires a person who is id guided... or idiotic (in a good way), while the other person is ego-driven. Or perhaps both people should have a good balance of the two. I know I am a little too rational at times, thinking before I act, when sometimes, its just better to act.

I reread this and I have to explain further. Id and Ego as I mentioned them above pertain solely to how one handles emotion and relationships. Idiotic comes from the word Id, BUT of course it has come to claim a negative connotation. So, to clarify, idiotic as I use it in relation to love is a good thing, because you are being driven by your feelings and not rational thought... and that only works for love. No one wants to be in a relationship with a complete idiot.

Id - one of the three components of the human psyche defined by Sigmund Freud. The id resides in the unconscious and is driven by the pleasure principle. It is the most primitive, passionate, and irrational psychic force.

Ego - Freud divides the psyche into three parts: the ego, the id and the superego. The ego is the 'rational' part of the psyche.

Changing subjects...

My water company and I are having some differences. Since I've been here, my water consumption has been approximately 1 thousand gallons a month. For some strage reason, this month they are charging me for 13 thousand gallons. Of course, I did the math, because the main water usage is the shower, washing, and the dish washer.

I wash dishes and wash clothes once a week. I have long showers (15 minutes) every day, and I probably flush the toilet about 4 times a day. IF I used as much water as they said I did...

I would have washed my clothes once a day
I would have used the dishwasher once a day
I would have flushed the toilet 45+ times a day
AND I would have to have 3 hour long showers... every day.

I just don't think 1 person can use that much water.
I'm off to the thursday night networking dinner.

~JL