Messy Fruit, Dogma & Ruddock Black

I think Blogs are wonderful things. I also like Facebook, not quite as much as blogs but a lot.

This weekend at my cousin's wedding, I found myself serving the role of some sort of `technology evangelist'... trying to convince tentative family members to join the dark side.

But, that aside, what I really enjoyed was seeing family members who had been following my blog. Instead of the usual, so... where have you been? What have you been doing? When are you going... they knew the basics, and looked for colour. Colour in areas that interested them.

The same happens when I see some of my friends. For the large part, they skip over most of the largely uninteresting rubbish I write until they discover something that interests them. Our conversation is immediately about something we both enjoy.

Three topics... which I will discuss later and in more depth.

1) Messy Fruit

I have a mental block against fruit. I don't know why. I just do. My mother will give an explanation that involves me having jaundice as a baby. But there comes a point where I can't blame all my idiotic characteristics on being slightly more yellow than normal as a little chap.

I have been talking in my blog about Haidt's metaphor of the elephant (emotional side) and the rider (rational side). This year, my elephant is going to be trained to eat fruit. That way, I will be able to sit comfortable next to people eating messy fruit without recoiling. This sounds bizarre. I am not going to offer a justification... because it is bizarre.

2) Dogma

Another topic I like to talk about is being open to being wrong when discussing something. If you come to a discussion with the mindset that you are correct with 100% probability, is it worth even discussing the topic at hand. Does one point on which you think everything else should be based, stop you from discussing anything else that might contradict that dogma? I think Dogma is dangerous.

3) Ruddock Black

I caused some amusement and some consternation at my theory on surnames. After years of deliberation (again some point to this as a sign of weirdness), I feel I have come up with a solution to the dilemma of the paternal naming convention. Few guys (myself included), have ever contemplated the idea of having to give up their surname. Double barrel surnames maybe (and seldomly), but never giving up our paternal surname. That strikes me as wrong. But it doesn't seem like a reasonable solution to the problem anyway. I think a better solution is to keep the paternal naming convention as is... and add a maternal naming convention (picture a world where everyone took the wife's surname).

It is easier to think of with examples. Made up examples don't work as well as just thinking what your surname would be if you had your Great-Great-Great Grandmother on you mother's sides surname (or anyone closer than that that you like or identify with).

So, for me, I am Trevor John Ruddock Black. When I get married, I can drop my maternal name (Ruddock), and take on my wife's. She can drop her paternal name and take on mine. A daughter would keep her maternal name, and should I have a son, he will keep my paternal name.

It really isn't that complicated. Trust me... I have thought about this far more than anyone really should!

(See here for a fuller explanation)