I was reflecting on someone's recent LJ entry (protected, so I can't productively link to it.. gaahhh) on how people might like to have dislikes in common, basing their friendships on that. This applies to some things I've observed in real-life - some of my friends and acquaintences have some pretty serious dislikes of other people, and in larger gatherings, I notice that many of their other friends strongly share them. I don't think I'm as close to some of them as I might be because I insist that people be fair and think clearly about things (well, that's how I think about it anyhow), and also because I usually don't share their dislikes. I can honestly say that in Pittsburgh, I don't think I have met many people who even come remotely close to my current perspective, either in terms of things I admire or dislike. I think the years of that condition being the case has reduced my need to share most dislikes with friends - apart from choosing a mate, I don't really need it, and am happy hanging out with people knowing that I don't need to approve every bit of who they are or what they do/believe. Would I have become this way if there had been large numbers of hybrid Green-Libertarians and Green-Communists on the slow path to where I am now politically and in Weltanschauung? I don't know, but I don't resent where I am now on that front.
I also read a psychology article by V. Ramachandran on the neurology of synesthesia, and was interested to find that artists show a much greater tendency for it. Details on cross-wiring near the angular gyrus and speculation on its role in creativity followed. As much as I sometimes think that popular science journals distort science, when researchers write summaries over many of their own papers, publish there, and spread excitement (with hopefully a good amount of accuracy) to the populance, I think it is a very healthy, necessary, and wonderful thing.