Memory

Not too long ago, I decided to stop sleeping. I needed to get more stuff done.

The recent flood of midterms and papers had something to do with it. But more than that, I was rebelling against the seven-day segments that dictate our waking consciousness.

When I did sleep, I wasn’t waiting until tomorrow’s light. I was collapsing involuntarily, whether it was appropriate or not. These indiscriminate naps made being awake seem as odd as being asleep.

Lunchtime slumber made the morning feel like yesterday. I ate tacos for what must have been breakfast, at 2 p.m. At one point I was working from 9 to 5 — the other 9 to 5.

I was doing more, though maybe not doing better. I marveled at the effort it took to form sentences aloud, as did friends I met on campus.

In any event, I was certainly processing memories of my daily experience differently.

If sleep is a punctuation of our daily lives, then my own frantic existence must have been something like Morse code.

I was not rested, which made me feel unprepared, which made me anxious, which made me more unlikely to sleep. Though, this did lead to some memorable dreams.

Consider the following premise:

You are sitting, inconspicuously, in the back of class when your professor singles you out. Your responses on the written exam are without precedent.

She thrusts her hand, clenched tightly about your blue book, high above her head. This work is peerless, she exaggerates loudly. No one should be capable of this.

Faceless heads turn slowly toward you. You sheepishly arrange your features in a way you hope conveys modesty. You quietly congratulate yourself.

Your professor continues, about how in all her years and all that, she has never read anything quite like it. She harangues the class on the proper methods of studying, of diving into the material. You know, really getting into it.

Following more ceremony, your professor hands you your test. The corner of the blue book tells you, in big red numbers, why you are without equal. Your grade is less than zero percent.

Your written answers are so vile, so repugnant, and so absolutely wrong that they merit negative points. You must be dreaming. You are.

Thankfully, the test had not happened yet. I still had time to study — and I made damn sure I did. I made sure I slept too.

These familiar nightmares often deliver a message about our waking world, easily decoded through some amateur psychoanalysis. But maybe they can say more.

Dreams like these are anomalous — they stay with us. They’re so bizarre, or frightening, or otherwise remarkable that we remember them. Most other dreams fade soon after waking, or seem not to have happened at all.

It seems forgetting dreams is a necessary aspect of resting the mind. Deep, dreamless sleep establishes a neat boundary between the real and unreal, between days of the week, between light and darkness.

Trading this organization of our thoughts and memories for insomnia may lead to having tacos for breakfast at 2 p.m. That was a confusing, if delicious meal.

The very funny Dick Cavett once noted that we don’t really create our dreams either. Everything in them is new and surprising. This might be what makes nightmares so disruptive. We are not in control of the stories we live while asleep.

What we do control, to the extent our work allows us, is when we go to bed each night. It seems logical that anxiety and restlessness in the waking world lead to nightmares in sleep. We can avoid these interruptions by resting on a regular schedule.

Routine sleep offsets a very real cost of walking around half-awake. A recent study by Harvard found that sleep-deprived employees cost American companies approximately $63.2 billion per year. Putting in long hours may be working dumb, not working hard.

The waking world can be a challenging place. But spending too much time here may hurt us more than help us. It had me worried I got an F-minus on my geology exam. We have to acknowledge the obvious fact that taking a break is necessary. With that, I’m going to close my eyes.

SEAN LENEHAN still doesn’t know what he got on his exam. He can be reached at splenehan@ucdavis.edu.

For some people, getting the physical intimacy they want out of a relationship, when they want it, is pretty easy. One call or text message, and your lover is on their way over for a quick bit of sexytime (or you’re on your way to their place, or to your secret love den, or what have you). Granted, sometimes you have to delay sex for commitments like class or work, but in terms of distance to cover before you can get down, you don’t have much to worry about.

However, other people find themselves in relationships where the object of their love and desire lives in another city, state or country. For those folks, there’s likely to arise a situation in which you’re all riled up but your partner is many miles away. If this describes a scenario you’re currently in, or may find yourself in in the future, then today’s column is for you. Because we’re going to go over a few ways to keep things sexy in a long-distance relationship.

The main option we’ll discuss is a classic: phone sex. Now, I don’t advise this as the first thing you do when you get on the line with your long-distance lover. You may be in the mood, but they may have just had an awful day and need to vent before they even consider anything sexy. One good approach is to send saucy text messages throughout the day, so that when the time to call rolls around you’ve both got sex on the brain.

Once you know phone sex is imminent, it’s a good idea to prep yourself. This includes the essentials, like charging your phone and making sure any toys you’ll use on yourself are clean and ready to go. But you also want to prep by making yourself feel sexy. So put on that pair of underwear that flatters your assets (or the shirt that makes you feel like a sex deity/socks that make you feel naughty/you get the point) and turn on the mood music.

Once on the phone, it’s okay to feel a little silly or nervous (especially if it’s your first time trying this). But, as I’ve said before, you want to embrace that silliness and then move past it. Just keep telling yourself that you are one hot, confident piece of what have you, and that you don’t give a damn what you look/sound like to some hypothetical observer.

If you’re stuck on what to say, try asking questions that set up a descriptive response. “What are you wearing?” works well (no, really), as do phrases like, “What are you thinking about?” or “What would you do to me if I were standing in front of you?”

If you’re the one being asked the questions, make your responses as vivid and detailed as you can (feel free to embellish as you think necessary). Once you get going, be as vocal as wall-thickness and proximity of roommates will allow, and don’t stop until you’re both satisfied.

If you’re craving a more visual way of connecting to your faraway love, there is the option of using things like Skype for video sex. The same tips apply to this activity that apply to phone sex, particularly the ones about dressing to make yourself feel confident and sexy. When setting up, pay attention to lighting to ensure that the image will go through clear.

A few caveats on Skype sex. First, make sure you have a very strong, reliable internet connection, or you’re going to be having sex that’s slow and stuttery. Second, there are attachments for Skype that allow you to record the conversation.

Now, if you and your partner talk it over and decide you want to record your sexytime for future use, that’s between you two. However, I would like to remind you that there is a special place in hell for those who record their sexual partners without their consent. If you think there’s even a chance your partner qualifies for that special hell, don’t have Skype sex with them.

I hope this column has given you some ideas on how to be sexy when you can’t be physical. Of course, these tips work great regardless of how close to the object of your desire you live. However, if you are far away from your love, these tips should keep your sex life going strong until the next time you can get your hands on each other.

SAM WALL really had to resist putting a “Firefly” reference in this column. Email sewall@ucdavis.edu for details.

If you’re a repeat reader of my columns, I think a thought has probably crossed your mind at some point or another: “Isn’t everything that this guy is writing about basically common sense?” I say things like: balance your money between saving up for a rainy day and splurging just to have a little fun once in a while, or eat in when it’s convenient and eat out with friends. It’s all so very basic and rational, especially from an economics standpoint.

But rarely do people ever behave rationally. At least from an economist’s point of view.

To give an example, take a pregnant woman who smokes cigarettes. To any normal person that thinks rationally in the conventional sense, what this woman is doing is completely irrational, no matter the circumstance. The smoking is not only harmful to her, but will also be detrimental to her unborn child as well. But from an economics standpoint, her behavior can possibly be seen as rational. As long as she is deriving the maximum utility at her desired price, then she is behaving rationally.

Economists define rationality (to put it simply) as doing whatever it takes to receive the most utility out of something. As I mentioned in a previous column, utility is just a measure of happiness. As in, people will do what makes them happiest/benefits them the most. Again, it seems like it would just be common sense, but all disciplines have to be built on a basic foundation, right?

But people never behave as rationally as economists believe. Thus, the models that are always made in textbooks always considerably downsize the scope of the world and narrow everything down into a very minimalistic and simplistic model. For example, a typical microcosm presented in economics would be a world in which there were only two stores that sold the same good and consumers were indifferent between both stores.

From there you can draw your demand curves, your supply curves, find your equilibrium point, etc. But only because it’s such a pared-down version of what the real world is like. There aren’t variables in economics that account for things like altruism or malice or jealousy.

Here’s another example of how something should go if people behaved rationally: Suppose that there are two people that have 100 $1 bills to split between each other. The caveat is that only one person gets to choose how it gets split, and if the other person disagrees with the split, then they both end up not getting anything. The way the scenario should play out, if all players were behaving rationally, is that the first person would allot $99 to himself and $1 to the other. The other would accept because the $1 would exceed the $0 he would have gotten had he declined.

But if you play this situation out with actual people, the results will almost never be that way. There will be cases where the people will split it squarely down the middle, or there will be cases where the deciding person will get a slightly bigger cut, but the other person will still make out with a decent amount. Or there will even be cases where the splitter will behave rationally and choose the appropriate split of $99 to one, but the other person will spite him/her and they will both end up with nothing.

I try to act rationally in my day-to-day life, but it’s difficult to adhere to at times. People are truly fascinating beings and our actions and behavior can’t really be mapped out on data charts and graphs.

With that said, take into consideration a little bit of what I just said. Think to yourself: “Am I behaving as rationally as I could?” as you’re on the precipice of downing that eighth gin and tonic. Will the ensuing hangover (and thus loss of utility) tomorrow be worth the utilities you’re gaining right now?

Actually, don’t think that way. It’s really dorky and lame and I don’t even think in terms of utility. But it is a somewhat interesting concept. I don’t know. I’m not behaving rationally right now as I’d rather play Halo than write up this column. But sometimes you’ve just got to behave irrationally and complete the things that you’re responsible for.

ANDREW POH suggests you sit in on a Game Theory lecture if you found what he talked about interesting. If you’d like to talk more about rationality, email him at apoh@ucdavis.edu.