1. Let us assume you met a rudimentary magician. Let us assume he can do five simple tricks--he can pull a rabbit out of his hat, he can make a coin disappear, he can turn the ace of spades into the Joker card, and two others in a similar vein. These are his only tricks and he can't learn any more; he can only do these five. HOWEVER, it turns out he's doing these five tricks with real magic. It's not an illusion; he can actually conjure the bunny out of the ether and he can move the coin through space. He's legitimately magical, but extremely limited in scope and influence.
Would this person be more impressive than Albert Einstein?
First of all, there is no "real" magic. Even under a hypothetical, no one can act outside the laws of reality. If that were to happen, that would only mean that we don't understand the laws of reality as well as we thought. Arthur C. Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." is well known, and I also like William Blake's "What is now proved was once only imagined."
Sometimes, when I make this point, I don't convey it well enough and people don't understand what I'm getting at, so let me try an illustration. Ancient Mayans could predict eclipses, right? Okay. But they had no idea what an eclipse was. Just because they could predict every solar eclipse to this day, that doesn't mean that Kinich Ahau was transforming himself into a jaguar, right? So it goes with magic.
That said, this rudimentary magician would not necessarily be more impressive than Albert Einstein, even by demonstrating these new scientific realities. Einstein's work was more impressive than a new understanding of physics which allows the conjuration of rabbits, etc. I reject Chuck's hypothesis, but if "Albert Einstein" just means "smart guy" to you, you're not getting the full depth of this question. If you actually have some knowledge of what Einstein did, the question is kind of absurd. I suspect that may have been what Chuck was getting at. There's also not enough information. Where did he learn to do these tricks? Did he study arcana and obscura for decades? Did he sell his soul? Was he just born with it? These things matter. Is the kid in your class who was double jointed more impressive than Galileo? Is Tiger Woods more impressive than Stephen Hawking?
A more reasonable question might be is a real world Gandalf or Dumbledore more impressive than Einstein. And still probably not. It's kind of an insult to Einstein.
2. Let us assume a fully grown, completely healthy Clydesdale horse has his hooves shackled to the ground while his head is held in place with thick rope. He is conscious and standing upright, but completely immobile. And let us assume that--for some reason--every political prisoner on earth (as cited by Amnesty International) will be released from captivity if you can kick this horse to death in less than twenty minutes. You are allowed to wear steel-toed boots.
Would you attempt to do this?
I'd say yes, but I'd have to have a pretty solid gameplan for how to kick the horse to death. It would be very difficult, and the worst case scenario would be a battered, tortured but still living horse at the end of twenty minutes. This depends on how strict the word "kick" is. I could probably get the horse on the ground by kicking it's knees backwards, soccer style, at which point the best bet would be to either stand on its throat until it suffocated (probably harder than I think... horses have powerful necks), or else stomp on its head until its skull shatters. I could probably do this if the head were flat on the ground and the horse wasn't writhing around or fighting back. So just how immobile "immobile" is would also be relevant. Under those conditions, I'd try. I'd insist the horse be eaten afterwards.
3. Let us assume there are two boxes on a table. In one box, there is a relatively normal turtle; in the other, Adolf Hitler's skull. You have to select one of these items for your home. If you select the turtle, you can't give it away and you have to keep it alive for two years; if either of these parameters are not met, you will be fined $999 by the state. If you select Hitler's skull, you are required to display it in a semi-prominent location in your living room for the same amount of time, although you will be paid a stipend of $120 per month for doing so. Display of the skull must be apolitical.
Which option do you select?
Easiest question yet. Hitler's skull, no hesitation. I kind of have to work to imagine why someone wouldn't do this. "Oh, he has Hitler's skull, he's a Nazi!" Let's think. I'm a student of history, and specifically WWII, Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. It's a historic artifact. This would have been a better question if Chuck specified you had to display it as a shrine to Hitler. Even then I'd probably do it. It's in my home, but I don't have people over. Even if they did: "Oh, that's Hitler's skull. Sorry about the Nazi shrine, I'm required to do that by the state. *shrugs, rolls eyes* But I get paid every month for this. It'll be gone in two years. Crazy, huh? Hey, you can piss on it if you want, I don't care."
4. Genetic engineers at Johns Hopkins University announce that they have developed a so-called ‘super gorilla.’ Though the animal cannot speak, it has a sign language lexicon of over twelve thousand words, an I.Q. of almost 85, and--most notably--a vague sense of self-awareness. Oddly, the creature (who weighs seven hundred pounds) becomes fascinated by football. The gorilla aspires to play the game at its highest level and quickly develops the rudimentary skills of a defensive end. ESPN analyst Tom Jackson speculates that this gorilla would be ‘borderline unblockable’ and would likely average six sacks a game (although Jackson concedes the beast might be susceptible to counters and misdirection plays). Meanwhile, the gorilla has made it clear he would never intentionally injure any opponent.
You are commissioner of the NFL: Would you allow this gorilla to sign with the Oakland Raiders?
This would undermine the whole idea of pro sports, but since I don't care about sports at all, and it's not like pro sports have any integrity anyway, fuck it, why not?
5. You meet your soul mate.
However, there is a catch: Every three years, someone will break both of
your soul mate's collarbones with a Crescent wrench, and there is only
one way you can stop this from happening: You must swallow a pill that
will make every song you hear--for the rest of your life--sound as if
it's being performed by the band Alice in Chains. When you hear
Creedence Clearwater Revival on the radio, it will sound (to your ears)
like it's being played by Alice in Chains. If you see Radiohead live,
every one of their tunes will sound like it's being covered by Alice in
Chains. When you hear a commercial jingle on TV, it will sound like
Alice in Chains; if you sing to yourself in the shower, your voice will
sound like deceased Alice vocalist Layne Staley performing a capella
(but it will only sound this way to you).
Would you swallow the pill?
No. There's a couple reasons for this. First, "You meet your soul mate." is pretty vague. What exactly does that mean? There are no souls, therefore no soul mates. If it's just shorthand for "Your perfect partner.", I think, somewhat contradictorily, that there is no such thing and also that there's more than one. Summarily, I don't think there's one perfect mate for everyone. There's seven billion people in the world, what would be the odds of you meeting them if there were? Not just meeting them, but interacting with them, etc. It's like when you were a kid, your best friend just happened to live right next door to you, or be in your class. It's just proximity. This isn't to diminish the significance of relationships, it's just that you have that capability with many, many more people than you're going to get a chance to experience it with. It's sort of sad, really.
Now, on to the collarbone question. If I'm with my perfect partner in every way I could imagine, I still wouldn't do it, and there's a very short reason why: I wouldn't want someone to do it for me. If this question were reversed, and it were asking "Would you agree to have your collarbones broken every three years so that your soul mate doesn't have to hear nothing but Alice in Chains?" I definitely would. Music is very important. Not to everyone, but it is to me, and by extension, it probably would be to this hypothetical soul mate. Like a lot of things, I don't think most people really get music. Don't get me wrong, many, many people do, probably more than, say, film. But while everybody likes music, if you treat it like an accessory, you're not getting it as an art form. If you consume what's offered to you, if you care about say, album sales, or what your friends listen to, it's not really speaking to you the way it does to other people. This question would be like asking, say, Picasso if he'd agree that everything he painted and every painting he looked at would look like Thomas Kincaid.
Having your collarbones broken would hurt, but it's not the end of the world. I'd definitely have my own collarbones broken for this, so I guess that's really what it comes down to: if the situation were reversed, I wouldn't want my soul mate to do it for me, therefore, my soul mate wouldn't want me to do it.
For the record, I like Alice in Chains. Dirt is an excellent, dark drug album.
6. At long last, someone
invents "the dream VCR." This machine allows you to tape an entire
evening's worth of your own dreams, which you can then watch at your
leisure. However, the inventor of the dream VCR will only allow you to
use this device of you agree to a strange caveat: When you watch your
dreams, you must do so with your family and your closest friends in the
same room. They get to watch your dreams along with you. And if you
don't agree to this, you can't use the dream VCR.
Would you still do this?
This might actually be easier than the one about Hitler's skull. No, no, a thousand times no. I wouldn't agree to let people watch what I daydream about, much less when the gloves come off. Of course I can't go into details, because that would defeat the purpose of keeping it to myself. I am a very vivid dreamer, and I actually remember them pretty well, so it would be kind of superfluous. The other thing about dreams is that they can't always be depicted in the way described. My dreams often involved (for lack of a better word) dimensions which don't exist in the natural world. There would be no way to "see" what was happening, it's happening on another plane of experience than the five senses. Also, yes, I do dream about sex a lot.
7. Defying all expectation, a
group of Scottish marine biologists capture a live Loch Ness Monster.
In an almost unbelievable coincidence, a bear hunter in the Pacific
Northwest shoots a Sasquatch in the thigh, thereby allowing zoologists
to take the furry monster into captivity. These events happen on the
same afternoon. That evening, the president announces he may have
thyroid cancer and will undergo a biopsy later that week.
You are the front page editor of The New York Times: What do you play as the biggest story?
While I personally find the cryptocreatures to be the more interesting story, I would play the president story. The other stories, while I'm sure people would be interested, don't really have any significance as news, they're just curiosities.
As far as whether the Nessie story or the Sasquatch story is bigger, it would depend on the details of the creatures themselves. If one of them is a fierce, monster like creature, that one draws the most interest. I'd probably say Nessie is the bigger story on paper. That specific legend has a mystique which is rivaled, but I don't think equaled, by the Bigfoot legend. This is because lots of cultures and lots of wooded areas have apeman legends, and while, yes, there are probably an equal number of legends about lake monsters, Loch Ness stands tall as the most well known by a country mile. There's no one Sasquatch, but a lot of people think in terms of "The Loch Ness Monster" just being one specific creature, although of course, if there were anything in the loch, it wouldn't be.
Also, once they were captured and studied, these creatures would just be animals. An undocumented apelike animal in the Pacific Northwest is interesting and fairly unlikely, but, assuming the popular image of Nessie, a plesiosaur-like animal in a Scottish loch is much more interesting and unlikely.
8. You meet the perfect
person. Romantically, this person is ideal: You find them physically
attractive, intellectually stimulating, consistently funny, and deeply
compassionate. However, they have one quirk: This individual is obsessed
with Jim Henson's gothic puppet fantasy The Dark Crystal. Beyond
watching it on DVD at least once a month, he/she peppers casual
conversation with Dark Crystal references, uses Dark Crystal analogies
to explain everyday events, and occasionally likes to talk intensely
about the film's "deeper philosophy."
Would this be enough to stop you from marrying this individual?
Not a problem. In truth, this has actually happened to me. I dated a girl for a while who was obsessed with both The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth. (Dark Crystal was definitely a notch below Labyrinth to her, but close enough). I didn't marry her, but it never bothered me. I actually quite like those films myself, and I prefer Dark Crystal, since it's much darker than Labyrinth.
Nerdy obsessions are par for the course with me. If you don't mind me talking about the deeper philosophy of pro wrestling, having Batman tattooed down the entire side of my torso, or flying into a rage when Cartman calls Slayer a death metal band, you can watch The Dark Crystal as many times as you want.
9. A novel titled Interior
Mirror is released to mammoth commerical success (despite middling
reviews). However, a curious social trend emerges: Though no one can
prove a direct scientific link, it appears that almost 30 percent of the
people who read this book immediately become homosexual. Many of these
newfound homosexuals credit the book for helping them reach this
conclusion about their orientation, despite the fact that Interior
Mirror is ostensibly a crime novel with no homoerotic content (and was
written by a straight man).
Would this phenomenon increase (or decrease) the likliehood of you reading this book?
Increase. You can't turn someone gay, and since 30 percent of the population in general isn't gay, this book is somehow attracting closet cases. It also doesn't say what happens when people who are already gay read the book. This question is slightly offensive in that way; it assumes hetero until proven otherwise. But anyway, I'm so far beyond gay and straight, that element would be meaningless. It's like Q: "Democrat or Republican?" A: "Anarchist." I'd just be curious as to what's in the book that's making this happen. If I could venture a guess about this entirely hypothetical book: like I said, closet cases. Once word gets out about this phenomenon, it's going to attract people who are struggling to admit to themselves that they're gay. It's totally psychosomatic.
10. This is the opening line
of Jay McInerney's Bright Lights, Big City: "You are not the kind of
guy who would be in a place like this at this time of the morning."
Think about that line in the context of the novel (assuming you've read
it). Now go to your CD collection and find Heart's Little Queen album
(assuming you own it). Listen to the opening riff to "Barracuda."
Which of these two introductions is a higher form of art?
I haven't, and I don't, so I'm going to alter this question to my personal tastes. The opening line of Stephen King's The Gunslinger: "The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.", and the opening riff of Black Sabbath's "N.I.B.".
Shit. I don't know why I put myself in this position. That's really, really hard. I'm going to go with my gut... and say... the opening of The Gunslinger.
11. You are watching a movie
in a crowded theater. Though the plot is mediocre, you find yourself
dazzled by the special effects. But with twenty minutes left in the
film, you are struck with an undeniable feeling of doom: You are
suddenly certain your mother has just died. There is no logical reason
for this to be true, but you are certain of it. You are overtaken with
the irrational metaphysical sense that--somewhere--your mom has just
perished. But this is only an intuitive, amorphous feeling; there is no
evidence for this, and your mother has not been ill.
Would you immediately exit the theater, or would you finish watching the movie?
I'd finish the movie. I'm not one to believe in premonitions. Also, leave the theater and do what? Call her, maybe? If she's dead, that's not going to make her any less dead. I guess it's just asking if this feeling would ruin my enjoyment of the movie. No, it wouldn't, because I'd dismiss it.
12. You meet a wizard in
downtown Chicago. The wizard tells you he can make you more attractive
if you pay him money. When you ask how this process works, the wizard
points to a random person on the street. You look at this random
stranger. The wizard says, "I will now make them a dollar more
attractive." He waves his magic wand. Ostensibly, this person does not
change at all; as far as you can tell, nothing is different.
But--somehow--this person is suddenly a little more appealing. The
tangible difference is invisible to the naked eye, but you can't deny
that this person is vaguely sexier. This wizard has a weird rule,
though--you can only pay him once. You can't keep giving him money until
you're satisfied. You can only pay him one lump sum up front.
How much cash do you give the wizard?
I'd go all out. All the money I have and can scrape together, selling plasma and everything. Not because I feel unattractive, I think I'm a fairly good looking guy, but this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Why not milk it for all it's worth? Also, if I paid him thousands of dollars, I'd become really, really ridiculously attractive. For better or worse, in this society, I could use that to easily regain all the money I paid the wizard. Win/win.
13. Every person you have
ever slept with is invited to a banquet where you are the guest of
honor. No one will be in attendance except you, the collection of your
former lovers, and the catering service. After the meal, you are asked
to give a fifteen-minute speech to the assembly.
What do you talk about?
Ecology.
14. For reasons that cannot
be explained, cats can suddenly read at a twelfth-grade level. They
can't talk and they can't write, but they can read silently and
understand the text. Many cats love this new skill, because they now
have something to do all day while they lay around the house; however, a
few cats become depressed, because reading forces them to realize the
limitations of their existence (not to mention the utter frustration of
being unable to express themselves).
This
being the case, do you think the average cat would enjoy Garfield, or
would cats find this cartoon to be an insulting caricature?
Garfield is a shit comic strip, so I don't think anyone reading at a twelfth grade level would enjoy it. Remember the Seinfeld where Bryan Cranston starts telling Jewish jokes, and the priest asks Jerry if it offends him as a Jewish person? "No, it offends me as a comedian." That's how I think cats would react to Garfield. I think this sort of generalizes cats, too. It's like asking "As a person, do you enjoy Homer Simpson or find him to be an insulting caricature?" And how is Garfield a caricature of cats? Do any cats you know hate Mondays, scarf lasagna, hit their alarm clock, have an alarm clock, kick dogs off tables, etc.? In fact, forget Homer, as a cat owner, are you insulted by Jon Arbuckle?
My answer: a little.
15. You have a brain tumor.
Though there is no discomfort at the moment, this tumor would
unquestionably kill you in six months. However, your life can (and will)
be saved by an operation; the only downside is that there will be a
brutal incision to your frontal lobe. After the surgery, you will be
significantly less intelligent. You will still be a fully functioning
adult, but you will be less logical, you will have a terrible memory,
and you will have little ability to understand complex concepts or
difficult ideas. The surgery is in two weeks.
How do you spend the next fourteen days?
I wouldn't get the surgery. I'd spend the six months writing a full, uncensored document of my life and ideas. Good, bad and ugly. Possibly some other things which I won't tell you because I'm not dying. The process of turning oxygen into carbon dioxide and food into shit isn't so all encompassingly important that it must go on at all costs.
16. Someone builds and
optical portal that allows you to see a vision of your own life in the
future (it’s essentially a crystal ball that shows a randomly selected
image of what your life will be like in twenty years). You can only see
into this portal for thirty seconds. When you finally peer into the
crystal, you see yourself in a living room, two decades older than you
are today. You are watching a Canadian football game, and you are
extremely happy. You are wearing a CFL jersey. Your chair is surrounded
by books and magazines that promote the Canadian Football League, and
there are CFL pennants covering your walls. You are alone in the room,
but you are gleefully muttering about historical moments in Canadian
football history. It becomes clear that—for some unknown reason—you have
become obsessed with Canadian football. And this future is static and
absolute; no matter what you do, this future will happen. The optical
portal is never wrong. This destiny cannot be changed.
The
next day, you are flipping through television channels and randomly
come across a pre-season CFL game between the Toronto Argonauts and the
Saskatchewan Roughriders. Knowing your inevitable future, do you now
watch it?
There just isn't any way that could be true. The machine would be wrong for the first time. You might as well say the optical portal shows you raping your mother in twenty years, or tap dancing with Bing Crosby and Danny fucking Kaye. I'd have no interest in the CFL game, of course, but I would be very curious as to what this could mean. My best guess: my future self remembers looking into the optical portal, and so must remember to dress up in a bunch of CFL shit and watch a game on a certain day to fulfill a prophecy, or I'm in witness protection or something.
17. You are sitting in an
empty bar (in a town you’ve never before visited), drinking Bacardi with
a soft-spoken acquaintance you barely know. After an hour, a third
individual walks into the tavern and sits by himself, and you ask your
acquaintance who the new man is. “Be careful of that guy,” you are told.
“He is a man with a past.” A few minutes later, a fourth person enters
the bar; he also sits alone. You ask your acquaintance who this new
individual is. “Be careful of that guy, too,” he says. “He is a man with
no past.”
Which of these two people do you trust less?
This question doesn't provide enough information. What's the first guy's past? Ex con, sex offender, mob enforcer, Hell's Angel... what? I'm kind of going to cheat on this one and say the one I trust the least is my acquaintance who keeps telling me to be careful of people. People project themselves onto others. Someone who believes others are not to be trusted is probably not to be trusted. Having "a past" is no reason to mistrust someone, nor is having no past. Which, of course, he does. Everyone has a past. So just not knowing someone's past isn't a reason not to trust them. Why so suspicious?
18. You have won a prize.
The prize has two options, and you can choose either (but not both). The
first option is a year in Europe with a monthly stipend of $2,000. The
second option is ten minutes on the moon.
Which option do you select?
I own Chuck Klosterman's Hypertheticals flash cards, which contain many questions like the ones on this list, so I can tell you he has some sort of obsession with going to the moon. He brings it up a lot. I really wouldn't be all that interested. There's nothing there but the opportunity to say "I went to the moon." Some beautiful landscapes (of which there are plenty in Europe), with ten minutes to enjoy them. Quite frankly I'd choose sitting at home with a monthly stipend of $2,000 over ten minutes on the moon. And what would I do if I already lived in Europe? Chuck again assumes his readers are too much like himself.
19. Your best friend is
taking a nap on the floor of your living room. Suddenly, you are faced
with a bizarre existential problem: This friend is going to die unless
you kick them (as hard as you can) in the rib cage. If you don’t kick
them while they slumber, they will never wake up. However, you can never
explain this to your friend; if you later inform them that you did this
to save their life, they will also die from that. So you have to kick a
sleeping friend in the ribs, and you can’t tell them why.
Since you cannot tell your friend the truth, what excuse will you fabricate to explain this (seemingly inexplicable) attack?
I'd kick them, then immediately run out of the room and act like I had no idea what they were talking about. Or else say a black guy broke in and did it. That always works.
20. For whatever the reason,
two unauthorized movies are made about your life. The first is an
independently released documentary, primarily comprised of interviews
with people who know you and bootleg footage from your actual life.
Critics are describing the documentary as “brutally honest and
relentlessly fair.” Meanwhile, Columbia Tri-Star has produced a
big-budget biopic of your life, casting major Hollywood stars as you and
all your acquaintances; though the movie is based on actual events,
screenwriters have taken some liberties with the facts. Critics are
split on the artistic merits of this fictionalized account, but
audiences love it.
Which film would you be most interested in seeing?
The documentary. I'd rather see that approach in a film about anyone, and I'm no exception. The inaccuracy of the Hollywood movie would irritate me, but I'd be interested in who they cast as me and people from my life. I can enjoy a film as a film even when the "true story" totally isn't (Anonymous for example. Great film, all bullshit.), but it being about me would add a certain element of difficulty in doing so.
21. Imagine you could go
back to the age of five and relive the rest of your life, knowing
everything that you know now. You will reexperience your entire
adolescence with both the cognitive ability of an adult and the memories
of everything you’ve learned form having lived your life previously.
Would you lose your virginity earlier or later than you did the first time around (and by how many years)?
Well, if I'm mentally 30, an inverse Josh Baskin, there'd be no reason to wait at all, I'd do it as soon as I went through puberty. There are unpleasant implications of doing it with either another 12/13 year old or with an adult woman, but I'd just have to figure something out (probably claim I had some sort of pituitary disorder and live as my true age rather than my apparent age), since that would persist no matter what age I did it. If I waited until I was 17, I'd be mentally 42, so it's the same situation. However, if I were to alter history, and choose when I would lose my virginity, rather than reliving my life with an intact memory, I'd make it later by three years.
22. You work in an office.
Generally, you are popular with your coworkers. However, you discover
that there are currently two rumors circulating the office gossip mill,
and both involve you. The first rumor is that you got drunk at the
office holiday party and had sex with one of your married coworkers.
This rumor is completely true, but most people don’t believe it. The
second rumor is that you have been stealing hundreds of dollars of
office supplies (and then selling them to cover a gambling debt). This
rumor is completely false, but virtually everyone assumes it is factual.
Which of these two rumors is most troubling to you?
Probably the first one, because stealing office supplies will be investigated and if I'm innocent, I should be exonerated, so that's the end of that. The first rumor isn't a big deal since most don't believe it, and in fact, being falsely accused of stealing office supplies would probably help deflect any flak from the first rumor. I'd be more troubled by doing the first thing than I would be by the second, but that wasn't the question.
23. Consider this possibility:
a. Think about deceased TV star John Ritter.
b.
Now, pretend Ritter had never become famous. Pretend he was never
affected by the trappings of fame, and try to imagine what his
personality would have been like.
c. Now, imagine that this person—the unfamous John Ritter—is a character in a situation comedy.
d. Now, you are also a character in this sitcom, and the unfamous John Ritter character is your sitcom father.
e.
However, this sitcom is actually your real life. In other words, you
are living inside a sitcom: Everything about our life is a construction,
featuring the unfamous John Ritter playing himself (in the role of your
TV father). But this is not a sitcom. This is your real life.
How would you feel about this?
Great. John Ritter seems like a good guy. And since my real life is a sitcom, I'll never have any real problems. Everything works out on TV.
No comments:
Post a Comment