The Free Association

How many times you see reactionary comments in someone's blog, attacking both the writer and what he writes?
How many times you yourself relate somebody's character (or rather: whether you like him or not) to his writing or comment in a blog, forum, or mailing list?
Just exactly how much you reveal about yourself in this virtual world?
Certainly not everything, but also not nothing, and might actually be not less than during vis-à-vis contact (hmm... this is beginning to sound like Agatha Christie: it's not the physical appearance which is important, Hasting! It is the psychology - to what things he reacts and how he reacts - says Hercule Poirot a.k.a. peregrin :-D)

Well, those above are just some random thought :-) I am now actually intrigued by the topic of psychoanalysis, the method to investigate the unconscious mind. One of the techniques that is very interesting is the parapraxes, the Freudian slips - an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is believed to be caused by the unconscious mind. One example would be when a man calling his wife or girlfriend by the name of another girl (gotcha!! :-)).
Other techniques are the free association and symbolism. Well, back to the internet, this would happen a lot, wouldn't it? Since we would have time to let our mind works, making free association unconsciously in interpreting others' writing, and eventually we would reveal what has been long in the back of our mind when we give reaction (not necessarily the correct interpretation to what the other person's meant). The other way around also - we often choose carefully what we write, but still symbolism and parapraxes happens, although this wouldn't be obvious to everybody.

In analytical chemistry (as this is my formal field :-)), there is a control, e.g. validity test, to ensure that the data presented to us shows the accurate situation, avoiding false positive and negative. In psychoanalysis, how to control this? How to control, for example, the dream interpretation technique? Could the influence of the psychoanalyst to the patient be totally avoided? I remember the novel by Nicci French - The Memory Game - in which a psychiatrist can emphasize and direct the process of recalling memory of the patient, making her telling things that has not happened.

Well, for the moment I am waiting for a friend to explain to me more about at least the dream interpretation. I guess I have to read more some books since I don't know what to ask first. But this would take a longer time ... *sigh. I don't have so much time to read everything I want :-(

Collaboration??

"Every sin is the result of collaboration" (Stephen Crane)

***

Well, discussing sin-not sin is not the intention of this posting (I am a sinful person afterall, what's more to discuss?). Just found the nice quote above in internet (where else?) :-)

Anyway, these last few months, I have been forced to deal with people from very different backgrounds. Starting with the journal club, etc. etc. (details are too boring!), until last week when I had to present the results of my master study as a prerequisite for joining one of the life sciences programs here.
My master research was in the field of chemistry. The examiners now were all molecular biologists. Strange situation. It was the first time for me to defend something in front of people who, approaching the same problem like mine, would choose totally different ways.
Anyway, the unpleasantness is not a big deal anymore, and I got accepted anyway :-) But it was interesting to see how an idea, initiated by one small group, could become a vision of many, while at the same time everybody says, "My way is the right way!!" and regards others' ways/works as almost junks.

As how come everybody agrees with the same vision, while giving this ignorance-to-others attitudes, is a mistery to me. Clearly everybody has the same problem (or recognize the same problem). This, in combination with continuing promotion, expectation of new profitable "innovation" by companies (the money-suppliers), the drive for (seemingly) being (also) in the frontier and not-to-be-left-out (afterall, trend followers are not only in fashion or gadgets) could have made one idea becomes the current hot topic in research.

What I have been talking about is the "omics" trend, the changing paradigm in looking at human physiology and disease mechanism (hence, disease treatments as well). The analytical chemists, partly advancing this holistic approach, would like to go far above, looking at human physiology like a satelite mapping the geographical surface of the earth. The biologists... well, I don't know - they just started. By default, biologists are looking at each small compartment of human body, studying every enzyme and metabolite and pathway. This has been the default approach in drug discovery and development, and this is exactly the paradigm that has been shifted by "omics". Then somewhere, either in the meeting point of holistic and conventional approaches or just in the middle of a lot of data, the mathematicians play a role, determining what is significant and what is junk. Looking at this, one would presume that collaborations among all interested disciplines would be the best way to clean the mess and to reach the common goal faster. But, is it that simple?

One of the hindrance in collaboration, I guess, is the preconceived bias when judging other people's works. Afterall, people need confidence, hence security, when choosing one particular way. Perhaps this is especially in research, or in any other works, when the positive results take a long time to be seen and the continued enthusiasm are partly based on faith.

Another question would be: what kind of collaboration would give the best input to everybody? Collaboration is of course loosely defined. Our institute, for example, consists of different specialized area in cell biology and (a bit) analytical chemistry. It is the idea of the big boss to have such a diverse group, which he believes is the best way to progress together. We are having regular meeting together, of course, if this is already considered good collaboration. But since the group is so diverse, there is no significant input then from others to your practical laboratory works. And this is sad, I think, because how can you progress - deeper in your specialization - if nobody criticize the details of your works?

Anyway, despite of everything, I guess I should be grateful, being in the middle of everything and have a chance to see and learn a lot of things like this. Although I am still struggling in the art of talking to people who would only listen to their own prejudice :-) (One advice that I ever got: no use to argue with morons. Well, this moron is my colleague! What can I do??).
Nevertheless, I am also very interested to see the development of this joint-ventures of different specialized disciplines and how research in "omics" would be developed.

Back to the quote, indeed it is only sin collaborates people best, without even the need of good communication :-) Everybody would just automatically protect others in attempt to protect himself :-)

The Suffocating Room

Have you ever been inside a very very small room? This room is so small, and the ceiling is so low, that all you can do is sitting and bending your legs, folding your arms to hug your body. And the only movement you can is with your head, to look at the darkness or to hide in between your arms. The air is so bad that, everytime you inhale, it feels like there is a big foam blocking your airway. There!! You feel trapped! You try to focus on a single light, coming from any crack in the wall, but the darkness is so overwhelming that every vision you have is blurred. And you fear, for something that you can't figure out, because your mind feels numb. The only thing happens in your mind, and your heart and your body, is the desire to escape.

At that moment, every laughter becomes more sinister, every finger-point pushes you further to the corner, and every demand parts you from your own self-will. Until you realize, that every unfriendly act is a struggle to come out of the black box of fear. And that we all, for the moment, are in our own suffocating rooms.