ReTweet

I have started two blog posts this week, but I have discarded both. It turns out, you see, that I've already written them.

First was the recounting of my visits to the Cognitive Rehab Center where I conduct my research, and how emotionally taxing it is to work with impaired patients. How that human thing we do, where we sympathize with the less fortunate and imagine what it's like to be in their shoes, inevitably leads ruminations on the fragility of the human condition.

I would have written about how I need to toughen myself up, and how much stronger than me the therapists (and psychologists, and medical staff, and social workers) who do this day after day must be. But, well, I've already written that post.

And then I got interviewed by a high school kid for a school newspaper or project or something. Really not clear on what that was about, but I was asked and so I answered. In explaining my scientific contribution to her, I was reminded of how very hard it is to make science sound interesting, even when (or especially when) you find it exciting.

It occurred to me that it's very much easier to impart some pathos, or at least gravitas, to the explanation when your research is about fixing what's broken, as opposed to understanding how things work in a healthy body. The story of one's research is always more gripping when some dragon is slayed.

One of my colleagues is improving cancer research. Another is improving spinal surgery (like that guy from Lost, but without the daddy issues!). These are compelling foils for our heroes. So, while my preferred research is in elucidating the hidden layers of motor control, I usually just say that I help people regain function after stroke.

Except, crap. I already wrote that one, too.

The only thing worse than a blogger is a repetitive blogger. Although I guess a repetitive blogger whose posts are self-serving is the bottom of the barrel. So, enough of this.

Here's some new content. There was a shouting match in the Dunkin Donuts today. A customer let loose on an employee, angrily and with R-rated language. The former claimed that the latter had stared at his girlfriend's posterior, and he was more than willing to express his displeasure at this. The customer and his girlfriend stormed out, or rather the customer stormed out and his girlfriend followed.

Now, I can't decide what's funniest about this. The shouting match itself was pretty amusing, as the customer searched for words to adequately describe his outrage, most of which started with "f" and ended with "uckin'", and the employee stood behind the counter, his mouth agape with surprise.

Even better, though, was the fact that the girlfriend was objectively unattractive. Just gross. Gross enough to be ogled for non-sexual reasons. Call me uncouth, call me unenlightened and backwards, but that's the way it wa. This chick was sideshow ugly.

The best part of it all was that, ghastly aesthetics and all, the employee had totally been ogling the girlfriend. Leering at her, sexually. He's that creepy, and frankly, he totally had it coming to him.

And with that, I return to the thesis. Today's topic: Methods/Data Processing/Onset Identification.