​Bald Cypress and Loblolly Pine
I visited the National Park next to my future study site this past weekend. The place is wild. It floods during rains, catches on fire during lightning, and is home to all kinds of animals. Walking through it deafening insects punctuated by Pileated Woodpeckers and Barred Owl raucous encompassed my ear space completely. It was so loud the entire time that it became a background hum – white noise. The place reminds me of The Princess Bride’s Fire Swamp. About 5 times a year it floods anywhere from 1 to 5 feet and moves sediment and nutrients throughout current and archaic riverbeds.

​The place itself is truly wild and is one of the last (If not the last – I’ve got to look into this more) bottomland hardwood forests remaining (in only the US, maybe elsewhere…more research is needed). This habitat was the habitat of the United States’ Southeast from Texas up into North Carolina. Not anymore. This last ~30,000 acres is about all that’s left.
As unique as the habitat is the true characters of this place are the trees. The most idiosyncratic of which are the Loblolly Pines and the Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum). The Loblolly Pines (Pinus taeda) here are some of the tallest trees in that country and the tallest this side of Rockies (basically everything except the Redwoods). They’re also super old. The have a thick trunk with Ponderosa-like bark, rough and scaly.
The Cypress are crazy looking. They have super bloated trunks that narrow into the proper tree about 15 feet from the ground and shoot into the canopy about 80 feet above. The weirdest part are their ‘knees’ though: their roots pop out of the ground into these biotic stalagmites. This means that in an undisturbed and old Cypress stand you’ve got about 100 knees sticking out of the mud and leaf litter for every 10 trees. It’s like the maw of some swamp creature slowly devouring the fat trees in their way. Why do the Cypress have knees? No one knows. It is hypothesized that they provide stability for the tree or act as a type of ‘snorkel’ when it floods. 

Experiment vs Observation
I am getting closer to thinking like a scientist. The simple dichotomy between an experiment and an observation was made apparent to me this week. An experiment is something that you can control where an observation is simply that.  I had never thought about the repercussions of that simple binary and what that means for developing theses, paradigms, and testing theories. My problem now, and I think indicative to conservation in general, is how to understand protection of species and habitats. So much of conservation is observation and so little of experimentation is relevant because it is so big. Conservation exists in a system. Observation leaves you watching species die and prairies converted into oil pipelines while you write a paper about it. On the other end, you can’t experiment on a system as large as the earth without intractable repercussions (I guess that’s called life). Qualitative research provides a middle ground with pragmatic research where you the researcher contribute to the outcome of your study with your engagement. Stewart Brand also recommends a similar caveat with his idea of the Vigilance Principle as opposed to the researcher’s maxim of the Precautionary Principle (if introduction of a new product or process whose ultimate effects are disputed or unknown should be resisted).
 
Benevolence
In philosophy we discussed agency, oppression, and deviance. One of the terms that came up was the idea of benevolence in regards to sexism. Benevolent Sexism is basically the idea that women need to be protected by men. Overtly, you can express that women are equal, that they deserve equal rights, etc but actions, behaviors, and policies are designed to protect them or provide for them more than men because they need it more. I wonder what Rhonda Rousey would have to say with this?

The first thing I thought of though when understanding this term was the relationship to post-colonialism and environmental issues. Benevolence in Post-colonialism manifests itself a couple ways I think. First, the disfigured aide stemming from White Guilt to old colonies creates a dependent nationalism that actually inhibits independent growth and postmodern actualization (basically: let’s send a bunch of development loans to poor black and brown people because they just don’t know how to fend for themselves). Second, whenever we see videos of the Arab Spring, the vacuum created afterwards, or similar acts of civil disobedience, a group pity of their situation and sense of relief that we in the first world aren’t there takes over. From there, what do we do and how do we help runs through the collective unconscious: send troops, send bombs, send support? No, that’s too much – unless terrorists find that vacuum enticing. Well, that’s unacceptable. Enter the Faustian handshake of now caring for a people that cannot take care of themselves. I might be totally wrong but it gets messy and benevolence helps me to understand how seemingly good intentions of a first world populace can get mangled in the real world of geopolitics.

Less clear to me and more insidious is how the concept of benevolence manifests itself in our relationship with the environment, environmentalists, and environmental projects. Zizek said ( I think in Violence but maybe in Desert of the Rea) that environmentalism will be co-opted by capitalism but that is the wrong path because you cannot solve the problem with the same mechanism that created the degredation. It took me several years to understand what that meant and I still don’t know If I agree with it. Environmental and Restoration Firms provide developers and municipalities with the appropriate tools to swerve through the hard fought regulations, sometimes the only biodiversity and land protection. I’ve seen how developers off-handedly say that they’ll ensure they’re in line with the regulations. Fast forward and land has concrete on it. I’m reminded of the scene in Jurassic Park when John Hammond’s dream of giving a vision of dinosaurs to kids is walked over by the lawyer who says they’ll have a coupon day.

​I see actual environmental success coming from productive relationships between industry and conservation. I really do. I believe that benefits from both can occur. But I am thinking that the concept of Environmental Benevolence is detrimental to this. Seeing environmental concerns as weak or something you have to tolerate only gets you crumbs because no one is invested. Dana White didn’t anyone wanted to see female fighters. Then he saw Rhonda Rousey fight and he thought of a huge market share of a female audience. Let her demonstrate to the UFC that female fighters are worth watching and both parties will make money. The same can be said for forests, wetlands, and prairies: activate their ecology and they will provide.  

An interdisciplinary study requires engaging in sometimes contrasting studies. For example, statistics and qualitative research. Also, who knew that grad school would bring some enlightenment on my own life. Bring it on.

1. A "Life in Balance" versus "Moderation" in life
In our philosophy class this week the professor said she values the idea of balance in life. I immediately shrugged away and made a face like I sucked on a lemon. She caught that and during one of our breaks she and another student asked me why I responded the way I did to a life in balance. My response was that it sounds horrible and that every meaningful and life affirming thing I’ve done has been at the expense of something else in my life (attention to health, friends, family, rest, finances, etc). For example, one of the most life-affirming things I’ve done was create and build the company I had. To do this, I had no significant relationship, I was fairly unhealthy, and spent almost all of my time on my company and things related to my company. The satisfaction I received in life was related to that effort. With a little reflection, most other things in my life run that way: giving up that company to travel and explore, relationships, and then moving from everything familiar to get over to South Carolina for graduate school. But then I also search out activities that are more intense than a moderate life too: fighting, backcountry explorations, and even studying and reading. Maybe that’s just how I’m wired (needing higher ‘doses’ of a weird cocktail of serotonin/dopamine/adrenaline/epinephrine to stay motivated).
 
But then the professor drew some line on the whiteboard and said that I am talking about a disgust of ‘moderation’ not a ‘life in balance.’ Moderation is the even keel, the steady line. Life in Balance is equaling out the intensity with the downtime. Here is my interpretation of her graphic:

She went on to explain that Life Balance can be either line (the wavy or the zig zag) but Moderation can only be the wavy one. I like this dichotomy. I like how it distinguishes between two motivations. My only addition to it would be that everyone’s need for a peak or a trough, people’s respective need for rest or excitement, is subjective and independent to each person’s neurochemical needs. My serotonin baseline is obviously way higher than someone who can live a life in moderation contently.
 
 
2. Qualitative Research and specifically Pragmatism
I have an Independent Research course and right now we are focusing on Qualitative Research and what it is. The moment I was sold on it was when my advisor said “I think you’ll like this; I think you will be a Pragmatist Researcher.” After looking into the different types of Qualitative research methods and frameworks, she is 100% correct. Pragmatism research is defined as doing whatever necessary to answer the question. If you have to use Qualitative Research, use that. If you have to use interpretative and subjective reflections, use that. That’s what I’m interested in: I don’t care what method I’m using as long as I can effectively answer my questions of how and why humans and non-human wildlife and habitats should exist appropriately. If I need to learn a Marxist-Feminist approach because that answers the question/s best, bring it on.
 
A quick summary of what I understand to be Qualitative vs Quantitative research and simple definitions of various Quantitative methods:
Quantitative Research:
Quantitative Research: emphasize objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by manipulating pre-existing statistical data using computational techniques.
 Qualitative Research: (textbook definition) a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. … They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self… Qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.
PostPositivism: A single reality exists beyond ourselves, “out there”
Interpretitivism/Constructivism: Multiple realities are constructed through our lived experiences and interactions with others
Critical Theory: Reality is based on power and identity struggles
Deconstruction: Changing ways of thinking and bringing to the surface concealed hierarchies as well as dominations, oppositions, inconsistencies, and contradictions.
 
Pragmatism isn’t necessarily a type of research but rather more of a type of approach – use any of the above research type and more to help answer your question. Yes, I’m definitely a Pragmatist.
 
3. Critical Periphery – Top-Secret Design Strategies for Increasing Effectiveness of Presentations (How to give a good Powerpoint presentation)

Over 12 years, I’ve given about 50 public presentations. Like, proper presentations with audiences of 4 to 150 people, a projector, a whole slideshow, and the nice(ish) clothes that go with it. As an informal science and arts educator at museums, nature centers, and out in the wetlands I’ve lead, taught, or facilitated at least 700 talks. I have gone through trainings, orientations, and lectures about how to educate but most of what I have learned about proper presentations has come from failing miserably and from my ex-business partner. His art form is Microsoft Powerpoint and he is good at it. Yesterday, I got my first actual lesson in how to develop a proper and professional slideshow talk.
 
Dr. Bixler went through a highly entertaining “meta-presentation” (a presentation about how to give a presentation). Emphasizing an “emotional affectation test” Bixler highlighted that an audience is going to automatically and unconsciously rank and value the information you propose as “is this worth putting into my long-term memory?” Basically, if you haven’t got into people’s heads with your talk than you have failed. How do you get into people’s heads then?
 
You don’t get into people’s heads by telling them how smart you are and how great your information is. You don’t get into people’s heads by giving them a lecture about all the stuff you know and they would be better for if they knew it too.
 
You get in there through narrative devices: building anticipation, speaking to Universals (things we all share in common -birth, death, life, food, family, etc), circling back to constant themes in the talk (emphasizing the points regularly), and surprises of humor and/or wordplay. You get in their heads through non-verbal communication of physically moving on stage, giving pauses at appropriate times, and acting out what you’re saying. You get into people’s heads by treating the presentation as theater and like good theater you have the ability improve someone’s life during the activity and into their lived existence afterwards.
 
Bixler ended with something so poignant from a responsibility standpoint, something I hadn’t really considered in my own talks. He mentioned that there were 57 people in the class and he spoke for one hour. That means that he just used 57 productive hours of time in sharing his message. Imagine what can be accomplished in 57 hours. I had always thought about the size of my audience in regards to how many people I was getting my message across to. But now, speaking to the Pragmatist in me, this responsibility of utilizing our potentially productive hours well I will think of my audience and my message differently.