I've always had a interest in finding out what really mattered. I'm not sure if personality types are a product of genetics or environment, but somehow I ended up an INTP (Myers-Briggs personality type). This is important because it is a very perpendicular type of personality. I'm introverted like 25% of the population, this makes 75% of the population think I'm shy, stand-offish, too uninterested in them, not focused on group acceptance, or just an asshole. I'm also very self-conscious, when 75% of the population thinks that's a bad thing the other 25% often will not stop to question whether they should embrace their nature or make an effort to "get better." Maybe drugs, therapy, or sports will make me better. Or maybe I've never "grown" from being a teenager yet, become a broken consumer of what other people say or think. Instead I tend to think that there's nothing wrong with who I am. Progressive civil liberties is about being allowed to be true to who you natural are. We've came a long way, first it was those who everyone agreed could not change who they where. It's pretty hard to argue that a black man should just straighten up and be white. It is done but it is brushed off as "culture" and something can people can change their culture. It's pretty hard to look down on women for being women, although integration still required a lot of changes in "culture" because if they can't change who they are they can at least change how they act. Then the gays. Still many people hold that gays should just stop being gay, but it turns out that a gay being straight is a lot like a black acting white to succeed, or a woman acting like a man. A gay can no more be straight then a black man can turn his skin white. I think my generation is the first generation to understand this (whether implicitly or explicitly), as seen in attitudes toward gay marriage.

The progress of social liberties is a sigmoid function, following the general path of human civilization as a whole. Fundamental progress happened early and took many centuries, then the pace quickens and tapers back off at the maximum. Who knows where we'll end up, you'd need to know the top and when you're on the curve it's hard to tell. Are we entering the inflection point or are we entering exponential change? I think exponential change. I have a scholarly fondness for for conspiracies, mysticism, religion, spirituality and the other fringe quests for knowledge. I also have a keen interest in quantum mechanics and the grand unified theory and other cutting edge sciences (one may argue the exact difference between fringe and cutting edge). But my fundamental belief can be explained in purely scientific terms.

Schrodinger's Cat is the though experiment behind the measurement problem. Basically; if you put a cat in a box where there is a 50/50 chance of it dying it exists in neither/both state until observed, a wave. A scientific purest may argue that the measurement problem is true only for quantum particles, another would observe that everything is made up of quantum particles. The cat-wave exists until it is observed, then it is either one or the other... a particle. It has turned out that this is a scarily fundamental truth to the world we live it and takes extra dimensions to explain, and not some philosophical construct. The observer collapses a cat-wave, but only for him-self. For all non-observers there is still a cat-wave, until the observer spreads the news and the cat-wave collapses for others. What if the observer lied? Would the cat-wave collapse to something it wasn't? Does the un-true become true of non-observers think it is true? Do we have so much control over reality that thinking something makes it true? I've never personally observed if this is true, but it seems possible. If it is a possible outcome then it exists in a reality-wave until I can observe one way or the other. Just as I see all conspiracy theory's. They are a percentage true until I can observe one way or the other personally. Robert Anton Wilson called this maybe logic, you can never really know anything so why pretend? There is something fundamental to our act of observation and what we believe, so why contaminate it with pre-conceived notions of what is true and what isn't? There's even a non-zero chance our belief can influence reality. Are you going to let someone else tell you what is true and what is not, or are you going to observe?

Of course what we think and believe influences reality. The optimist sees opportunities and chances for success, the pessimist sees only opportunities for failure. The christian sees God's will at work and people who believe in UFOs will see them too. How far does our influence over reality go? Who knows, but if you believe you can change things you will and if you believe that you're a victim of the horseshit you've been feed then things will never change. If you believe that it is ok to be black then it is. If you believe that it is ok to be gay then it is. If you believe that you're a ham sandwich then you are. Anyway, I'm an introvert. AKA, asshole disease. I'm just too busy being self-conscious of the implications of each of my actions to be interested in what others think about me. After all, it is not what they think that matters. Deeper understanding of reality or drug induced paranoia?