The Misunderstood Guinea Pig in the Maze

            In middle school, I did my science project on bath salts and no one engaged in cannibalism, but this is not what I’m writing about.  The focus is on another project across the classroom.  They weren’t the nicest girls, but I learned from their project, probably moreso than they did. 

These two girls decided to run a few rodents through a maze for their science project.  It was a homemade, hot pink, cardboard maze, and it was just big enough to fit their largest furry contender.  They had three different rodents run through their simplified labyrinth: a mouse, a gerbil, and a guinea pig.  For each trial, they measured time elapsed, and number of times the animal ran into dead ends.

In class we got to watch each creature run through the maze.  The mouse was the fastest, and the gerbil was a close second, but the guinea pig took significantly longer and ran into the most dead ends.  My classmates laughed as the guinea pig crawled into the same dead end twice after running into it seconds ago.

The guinea pig would seem stupid to most people.  Not knowing the facts doesn’t make it the guinea pig’s fault.  Little did my classmates know, guinea pigs don’t use their eye vision very often.*  Olfactory is their dominant sense, not vision.*  Moreover, the maze halls just barely fit the guinea pig’s size.  The mouse and the gerbil could comfortably move, scope the area, and turn around, whereas the guinea pig had to back out of a hall to go somewhere else.  The misunderstood guinea pig was very disadvantaged.  The mean girls judged him to be the dumbest.  They even named their project, “Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest.” 

This pretty much sums up Special Ed discrimination, whether it’s by “fellow” classmates or “adults” who are supposed to be faculty.

As someone who has experience working with Special Ed students, and being the Special Ed student, I see how this project parallels.  The guinea pig functions differently on a sensory level, and the system was physically unaccommodating to him.  (I’m just going to call it a boy).  Then administrators judge/grade him as if his circumstances were equal to his furry classmates.  They label him as “the dumbest one.”  The admins don’t understand his difficulties or the biology behind his differences, and somehow not knowing the facts makes him the stupid one?  The kids laugh as he makes mistakes.  The guinea pig probably didn’t give a shit about anyone present, but the parallel is still there. 

Point:  Things aren’t always what they seem to be, and neither are people, hence anyone can be misunderstood.  Reading deeper into things leads you to deeper understanding.  Being afraid of “overthinking” leads to being superficial and only reading surfaces.  The mind is a muscle, and the more you use it, the stronger it gets.

*Credit:  I learned these facts from my friend who is a professional guinea pig rescuer.



Originally a Facebook Note posted: July 13, 2016

Updated: March 7, 2020
Edited: May 2, 2020

Trophies

In past years, I’ve heard a lot of people complaining about how people are raising children to be wimps by giving them trophies for participating.  They say the little trophies quell the feelings of losing.  Here are my thoughts on this issue.

There may be sore losers, but there are sore winners too.  Ever have some crazed jock harass you that you lost even if you didn’t care about winning or losing?  The participation trophies might prevent the bullying; deluding the sore winner that the other kid didn’t really lose.  Since games are supervised, shouldn’t the coaches intervene with the sore sports?  With better moral character development, they could save money on the extra trophies and just bring sweets for everyone.

Most irritating is that the wimpy kids are shamed instead of the grownups who have the decision making power.  The recipients are blamed for accepting the trophies, rather than the adults who bought them only to complain later.  Most millennial children were taught to say, “thank you,” instead of throwing the item back at the benevolent adult.  

In the end, it is just a game.  It’s not about winning or losing.  It’s about having fun.  If you are playing just for the trophy, then do you really like the sport?  Are you playing the game because it’s fun, or is it a means to an end?  If all you want is the stupid trophy, feel free to go out and buy one.  This goes for both winners and runners up who want something shiny to take home.

If people want everyone to be treated equally, and if it doesn’t matter if you win or lose, then why not get rid of all the trophies?  Having fun should be the real reward, because that’s the point of the game.

I’ve heard the redundant arrogant phrase, “Second place is the first loser.”  If so, then why don’t we get rid of the silver and bronze medals at the Olympics?  Being second place at the Olympics is a very big achievement.  If I won a silver medal in any sport at the Olympics - I don’t care if it’s ping-pong - my eyes would be brimming with tears of joy.

In ancient Greece, they didn’t have the medals yet.  The first place winner won a laurel wreath to wear on his head.  Afterward, he would hang it on his front door.  The wreath wouldn’t last forever.  It would eventually fall apart.  Should we return to that tradition, where there is only one winner and the prize is not from a wholesale catalogue?  Then personal merit and achievement would be the ultimate reward, not some gold-dipped plastic trinket.

There are no losers, because we all win something - an experience, fun, a new friend, a good workout, etc.  There is only the best, the worst, and a scale of everyone in between.  The ranks are not permanent. If you lose one game, you may win the next; vice-versa.  Even if you are the worst, you are the worst at a game, not something important.  You may discover you excel in something that means more to you later on in life.

Originally a Facebook Note posted: November 30, 2013
Updated: March 1, 2020

Warning Labels

I hear so many people say, "Tear off the warning labels," so only the smart people will survive, or that "People are so stupid they need these warning labels."  Labels say coffee is hot, use product only as directed, do not ingest, etc.

My take is only the smart people read warning labels, but do not need the obvious ones.  Stupid people don't read anything, and then make fun of people who do read or do anything "brainy."  Those obvious labels are there for legal reasons, not because people don't know the coffee is hot.  People are not stupid, they’re clever.  They will sue and win money from the corporations, all over technicalities such as something not being labeled.  The corporations are simply trying to protect themselves legally from paying future settlements in civil suits.  For instance, most non-edible products will tell you to call Poison Control if the item is accidentally ingested by you or your child.  Poison Control relieves you, saying that your child who drank a bit of laundry detergent will be okay, but corporations will tell you to call Poison Control anyway so you can not sue them.  The ball is no longer in their court.

Reading the warning labels is good.  Not all information is the dumb obvious kind.  Knowing exactly when and when not to use over-the-counter medicine for is useful, especially if it's a product you haven't tried before.  Most people don’t have medical knowledge about liver or kidney damage or which products not to combine.

Removing the warning labels would not change anything for the "stupid" people, if they didn't read the labels to begin with.  They would just misuse the product on their own with or without directions.  The companies would then have total liability for not providing the information.  Injured consumers would not have to get clever and just mention anything was missing.  Because all the relevant information is marked, consumers have to try harder to look for holes and information gaps in order to make legal claims.  The clever consumer has to "play dumb" to win the court case, get the money, and then the company throws on the dumb warning label, thus deceiving the populace into thinking people are getting dumber.

Everyone knows the coffee is hot, but a smarter label would specify how hot.  What temperature?  There is a difference been 98 degrees (body temperature), and 212 degrees (boiling).

Originally a Facebook Note posted: June 28, 2013
Updated: March 1, 2020