Piano Lessons

Duncan Leave a comment

Many parents enroll their children in musical instrument lessons at an early age in hopes of fostering discipline, focus and an affinity for music. What they don’t realize is that focus and discipline aren’t cool. What’s cool is playing the guitar, and most parents make their kids learn some culturally irrelevant instrument like the harp or piano.

If you were one of those unfortunate children, then you were likely filled with poisonous envy every time you saw someone serenade their peers with a simple tune from their guitar. You also harbored secret resentment toward your parents, who didn’t have the foresight to choose an instrument that would make you popular.

The most common choice of instrument for children by their parents is the piano. This is likely because pianos add a subtle elegance to the living room and they can be played at a mild volume. But children don’t want to play the piano. All of their favorite musicians play the guitar, and keyboard players in most bands are easily and frequently replaced. This is why, as teenagers, many piano students eventually attempt to learn the guitar. However, there is a great hurdle that students of the piano need to overcome when learning the guitar: guitars don’t make sense.

If you are one whose first language is the piano, then you probably have a difficult time understanding how the guitar works. This is because a piano’s keys are is simple to play and its notes are arranged in a linear progression; the guitar is much different. This is how a piano player sees a guitar:

This example uses standard tuning on a six-string guitar with twenty-four frets. The guitar’s notes are a maze compared to those of the piano, but this diagram doesn’t tell the whole story.

The use of color in musical notation has long been ignored. By assigning each note in an octave its own color, students can recognize each note much more quickly and easily. This also allows us to more clearly see the drastic dissimilarity between the arrangement of notes on a keyboard and a guitar. For this example we will borrow the electronic color code, since it has twelve colors, and this will promote uniformity between the professions, allowing those in the electronics field to easily transition into music.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Because each string has its own tuning, the colors produce a chaotic spectrum that is sure to confound even the most accomplished pianist. This depiction isn’t entirely accurate, however, since it does not portray the horizontal distance that the guitar’s notes would cover on a piano.

There you have it, a guitar is actually six individually-tuned keyboards stacked one on top of another, offset by several notes. Even if we can make sense of this system, there is still the problem of adapting to the puzzling mechanics of the guitar.

The guitar has a shorter range of frequency than the keyboard. Also, the keyboard can be played with either or both hands, while the guitar must be played with two hands at all times. Both hands operate in basically the same way on a piano, while the guitar requires that each hand perform a distinct function. Furthermore, a keyboard player may strike one to ten different notes at the same time (or more if afflicted by polydactyly), while a guitarist may only pluck one or two strings or strum up to six adjacent strings. Guitar players are also limited by the tuning of the guitar, since each configuration has its own advantages and drawbacks.

One way to avoid some trouble in transitioning from the piano to the guitar is to use open tuning. This guitar configuration allows chords to be played without learning complex fingering.

Although the differences may not appear significant, open tuning produces a major chord when six parallel frets are held together. This allows the musician to play each major chord by simply stretching one finger along a fret.

So you want your children to learn piano? Teach them guitar. Once they can play the guitar, learning the piano will be a breeze.

A Flowchart for All

Duncan Leave a comment

A flowchart is a step-by-step graphical representation of a system or process. Flowcharts possess the unique capacity to produce a variety of solutions, making them very useful for problem solving and troubleshooting. Through unidirectional navigation of individual decisions and stages, the reader may quickly and easily reach the appropriate conclusion.

Flowcharts are used to educate or entertain in a variety of subjects, including business, economics, programming and philosophy. No matter what your interest or profession, flowcharts can add clarity to the most complex or mundane topic.

Click here to view a flowchart that everyone can enjoy.

Hierarchy of Shapes

Duncan Leave a comment

Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a concept often used by the mildly educated to assert intellectual superiority over common folk. The idea is simple enough for a first year college student to grasp while complex enough to confound ignorant laborers.

It was Abe’s observation that human needs could be classified into five distinct categories: health, safety, love and belonging, esteem and self-actualization. He observed that as the more basic needs, such as oxygen, food and safety, are satisfied, one shifts attention to more advanced needs, such as relationships, art and philosophy.

Self-actualization could be described as the desire of humans to achieve their full potential. Although most people associate Maslow with self-actualization, the term was actually created by Kurt Goldstein. This is an example of Stigler’s law, which states that inventions are often named after the one who popularized it, not the one who discovered it. Although most people associate Stephen Stigler with Stigler’s Law, the concept was actually discovered by Robert K. Merton. This is an example of Stigler’s law.

Aside from the irony of the inauthenticity of the perceived origin of self-actualization, another interesting facet of Maslow’s hierarchy is that it is often represented by a pyramid or triangle, though Maslow never used these shapes to illustrate his idea. The reason why a triangular shape is used to describe the progression from the basic deficiency needs to more complex being needs is that Maslow’s arrangement is not only chronological, but hierarchical. This means that the needs at the bottom not only precede those at the top, they are also less significant.

The triangle is the elitist’s favorite shape. Those who crave success and exclusivity maintain a triangular view of society, for it is the perfect geometrical manifestation of elitism. The wide base of the triangle represents the ignorant masses, toiling in bowels of obscurity, while the narrow peak symbolizes the exclusive few who, from their lofty vantage, hold the keys to truth and happiness. The orientation of the shape is also significant, for the transition from the hungry and poor to the self-actualized is one of upward ascent, which implies progress.

There are much more inclusive shapes one can choose to represent an idea. The square, for example, may possess four distinct and harsh corners, but it does not lend itself to any one side and is equally inclusive at the top as it is at the bottom. Likewise, the circle, with its smooth, noble perimeter, promotes wholeness and equality, paying no mind to orientation.

Don’t trust anyone who shows you a triangle.

The Show Piece

Duncan Leave a comment

Gum chewing is a strange thing. It gives us flavor without nourishment, confusing our stomach. It also exercises our mandibles and gives talkative people something to do when there’s no one around to listen, for as the crying infant has the pacifier, the ceaseless speaker has chewing gum.

Modern chewing gum packaging often consists of an outer package which contains all of the graphics and production information and an inner package which holds the gum in neat little compartments – neat little compartments of chaos.

The inner package is visible through a semi-circular cleft in the outer cover. By firmly grasping the revealed section with the thumb and index guy, we can slide the internal package out, gaining access to its luscious innards. Besides granting quick access to the product, the opening in the outer package serves a second, more important function that is often ignored.

If we wanted to know whether the package was empty, we could slide the inner section out and take a look or we could save ourselves seconds of agony and use the opening to view the show piece.

The show piece is the single piece of gum visible through the outside packaging. If we simply eat the show piece last then we must never again endure the disappointment of opening an empty pack.

When you chew your gum, do you eat the show piece last?

Litching Swetters

Duncan Leave a comment

Talking, much like walking, is a necessary function that can be fun but becomes tedious over time. Slang helps to keep things interesting by constantly rearranging and adjusting the meaning of words, but its downfall is that it renders previously meaningful language unusable. Clams, cheddar, green, dough and paper are all slang terms for money, but they are not new words; they were redefined for the ignoble purpose of attempting to appear original. By taking words that have a specific use and applying them to something else, language is eroded and our vocabularies shrink. This practice is especially foolish when the object being named already has its own word. Language is always evolving – this is inevitable – but we do not need more words for money.

Sometimes something completely new is discovered and needs to be named, but instead of redefining an existing term why not create entirely new terminology? Everything was nameless at some point, so we shouldn’t hesitate to assign new titles to new things. Unfortunately, inventing an entirely new term may seem simple, but making a word that sounds legitimate is more complicated, for speaking a meaningless word produces noises that seem fabricated and unnatural. We can reduce this effect by engineering our word to resemble existing English words. The simplest way to do this is to simply switch a few letters in two already established words.

First, choose two words. Let’s pick some that aren’t too complex or unique-sounding. As an example we will use some words that are right at our fingertips: shift and delete.

Second, we take the first sound of each word, which in this case would be sh and d, and switch them. The result is two brand new words: shelete and dift. Fun and easy, right? Let’s practice a few more.

  • silk hamper = hilk samper
  • nice tool = tice nool
  • gutter hulk = hutter gulk

This method can also be used to create nicknames for friends and family as well as original names for pets and babies. It works basically the same way as with words, but we choose two names instead.

  • Peter Smith = Smeter Pith
  • Bill Scott = Skill Bot
  • Jenny Williams = Wenny Jilliams

Most of these examples are pretty straightforward. We take the consonant sound from the beginning of each word or name and exchange them. But what about words and names that don’t begin with consonants? Let’s try Adam and Charles. Because Adam does starts with a vowel sound we simply switch the ch sound from Charles to Adam, which produces Chadam Arles. 

What about when neither of the two words starts with a consonant sound, as with Oliver and Amos? We simply switch the vowel sounds, giving us Aliver Omos. Because we are alternating the sound and not merely the letters of the two components, we must sometimes alter the spelling of the new words or names so that they are properly pronounced. Aliver Omos would be more accurately spelled Aeliver Ommus.

Okay, so what do we do when one or both of the words starts with multiple consonant sounds, such as glamour and freedom? We actually have two options in this scenario, for it is viable to switch either the first or both the first and second consonant sounds, producing either glamour and greedom or framour and gleedom.  

Go ahead and give it a try using the names of people and items around you. Nineteen words of caution: letter switching is highly addictive, so be sure to practice reservation or you may test the patience of others.

Good luck microing your Stink Blockers.

Loss of Me

Duncan Leave a comment

Need to lose weight in a hurry? Diets can take time. Here are eight overlooked methods for instantly shedding mass:

  1. Remove lint from bellybutton.
  2. Clip fingernails and toenails.
  3. Exfoliate.
  4. Excrete.
  5. Blow nose.
  6. Shave head and body hair.
  7. Donate blood.
  8. Spit.

Consent to Conceive

Duncan Leave a comment

The average age of marriage for women in Kuwait is 15.4. This statistic causes discomfort for many people because the average age of marriage for women in the developed world is double that of Kuwait.

When we imagine a 15-year-old girl getting married, we almost certainly picture a helpless girl, robbed of her innocence and independence by rape or through coercion into an unwanted relationship. We can’t help but revile such practices, since girls of that age in the developed world are still considered children, concerning themselves with homework and kittens, not raising a family. But is there really a objective standard for the age of marriage or, more specifically, childbearing? And if so, what is that age and how is it determined? There are several ways to approach this topic; let’s begin with an ethical perspective.

Withholding rights and freedoms based on age is discrimination, making children the most ostracized members of society. Children can’t marry, can’t vote, can’t drive, can’t work and they can’t destroy their bodies with dangerous substances such as alcohol and tobacco. They are also segregated into their own education and prison facilities and are regularly refused access to certain carnival rides. All of this is just fine, of course, because we know that children are foolish and irresponsible, which is why we keep knives out of reach of them. All youth are underprivileged, but that is something that we know and accept, so there isn’t really a moral argument for children having the right to give birth or marry in this cultural climate. Let’s move on to the emotional aspect of this issue.

From our culture’s perspective, children not only make poor choices, they are also emotionally unstable. By restricting their freedom, we are protecting them from the consequences of their own irrational behavior. Determining the age at which they are emotionally prepared to make such decisions is somewhat arbitrary and probably has less to do with the number of days spent they’ve spent on Earth than what they learn from culture and school. In America, young girls are taught math, science and history, not how to feed and care for babies. At some point, however, children do become emotionally stable enough to make life-changing decisions, and it’s quite possible that happens at age 15.4 in Kuwait. After all, we expect teens to factor polynomials, which is far more complicated than child-rearing. Now we see that there is no absolute moral law or measurable stage of emotional development dictating an appropriate age for bearing children. Perhaps our friend, biology, can shed some light on this shady issue.

Puberty is a stage of physical development which occurs between the ages of 12 and 16 in boys and between age 10 and 14 in girls. During this period, the body undergoes drastic morphological transformation, and life sucks. The eventual result of this process is a hairy, sweaty human body with a fully-functional reproductive system. Girls are biologically prepared to bear children by age 15, which is more than 10 years younger the average age of a woman giving birth to her first child in the United States. This means that by the time the average American woman gives birth to her first child, her reproductive system has been idle for a decade. Talk about rotten eggs.

All other mating creatures on the planet will attempt to procreate as soon as they are able, so is it really absurd to ask a sexually mature female to bear a child? Comparatively speaking, it certainly is not. Humans have seized control of their reproductive destiny from mother nature and redefined the appropriate age for parenting. We now stress the importance of independence, financial and educational success over responsibility and family. The result is young people who are able and willing to engage in sexual relations, but are not expected to accept the outcome of such activity. We teach them how to plant seeds, but not how to grow crops.

What’s even stranger about our reproductive behavior is that the average age of puberty for girls has been decreasing, which means that we are bearing children later in life while our bodies are preparing for childbirth sooner. In fact, there’s a well-documented story from the 1930s of a Peruvian girl who became pregnant at the age of 5. This case, along with modern Kuwaiti practice, offend our sensibilities because they undermine our culture’s notions of sexuality. But if our bodies are prepared for procreation, then is it not a mistake to avoid emotional preparation for such practices?

Perhaps our discomfort with 15-year-old mothers reflects a simple difference in culture, or a maybe it reveals our failure to prepare young people for adulthood, a natural and necessary ingredient for existence. Either way, we shouldn’t judge Kuwaitis, since their behavior more accurately corresponds to the stages of biological development, which is the only concrete, natural way to determine the proper age of consent to conceive.

But perhaps there is a way to take into account the physical, mental and emotional maturity of individuals. Rather than simply waiting until a specific number of days has passed since the child was born, we could wait until children reach puberty, then allow or require them to pass an examination before they can accept the responsibilities of adulthood. This way we ensure that they are in every way prepared for adult life. This may seem silly, but isn’t it far more ridiculous to think that a child becomes an adult overnight, and that every child experiences this transformation at the exact same time?

We don’t just assume that children can operate motor vehicles once they turn 16, yet we accept that they can vote, get married, own property, join the army and make other serious life-altering decisions based solely on their age. Also, if maturity becomes something that must be proven, then such a system could also be used to provide more consistent and concrete determinations in cases where sanity or cognition are called into question. This would be helpful, for just as we limit the responsibilities of children, we also do so with criminals, seniors and the mentally ill.

Don’t judge people based on the number of days they’ve been alive.

Official Opposition

Duncan Leave a comment

Despite how insightful the idea may seem, the opposite of love is not indifference. The opposite of something isn’t nothing, it’s something that is opposed or contrary to it. If the opposite of love is indifference, then the opposite of every emotion must also be indifference. Though cold is technically the absence of heat, the opposite of a high temperature is a low temperature, not a mild temperature. So what are opposites, exactly, and how do we determine their identity?

Although we all understand what an opposite is, defining it is a little tricky. For example, everyone knows that the opposite of evil is good and that good triumphs over evil, but how do we define good in relation to evil? Good is not merely the absence of evil, neither is it something totally dissimilar; it is the inverse, the nemesis or, expressed mathematically, evil*-1.

There are actually two distinct variations of opposites: polar opposites and binary opposites. Examples of polar opposition would include an inch and a mile or constipation and diarrhea, because they reside at different ends of a spectrum. Polar opposites are simply the inverse of each other and usually aren’t very difficult to discern.

Binary opposites, however, are not commonly identified as part of a spectrum, but are defined in relation to a counterpart. Men and women, for example, are opposites not because they are contrary or inverted, though in some ways they are, but because they make up the gender binary. Using this interpretation, the opposite of night would be day and the opposite of a hand would be a foot.

Sometimes a subject may have more than one binary opposite. Although this seems nonsensical, we must remember that most things can be categorized in different ways. For example, a man is not merely defined as one of two sexes, but as a human, an intelligent being, a creature, a collection of organic matter, an imperfect being, a creator, a destroyer and an explorer. So depending on the context, the opposite of a man could be an animal, an inanimate object, an angel, demon, god or ghost, a force of good or a force of evil. Likewise, the opposite of a chicken could be an egg, but the opposite of a chicken stir fry would probably be a beef stir fry.

Now what happens when we add attributes to the subject? A tall man is an example of something that has both a polar and binary opposite.

Tall Man
Tall Woman
Short Man
Short Woman

Here we see the different potential opposites of a tall man. The opposite of the subject, man, is woman, and the opposite of the attribute, tall, is short. So how do we determine the opposite of a tall man, since it’s comprised of two components?

There are three dominant theories which dictate how we derive the opposite in a case such as this. The first is opposite subject theory, which states that we should find the inverse of the subject, resulting in tall woman. The second is known as opposite attribute theory, and it requires us to invert only the attributes, which produces short man. The third theory is called complete opposite theory, and it states that we must find the opposite of both the subject and the attribute(s), giving us short woman.

One idea that has fallen out of favor in recent years is opposite attraction theory, which uses the laws of attraction to deduce opposites. This theory is very fun and works great in the realms of romance, positive thinking and electromagnetism, but it doesn’t help much in our case. Each of our three dominant theories has its own strengths and non-strengths, which we will be revealed through examination our next example: a baby boy playing. Let’s see how each of our theories decodes the opposite in this scenario.

Baby Boy Playing
Baby Boy Working
Baby Girl Playing
Baby Girl Working
Adult Boy Playing
Adult Boy Working
Adult Girl Playing
Adult Girl Working

Opposite subject theory would have us invert the subject, boy, resulting in baby girl playing. This theory works very well when dealing with subjects with obvious polar or binary opposites, but what about something that doesn’t have a clear opposite, like a paperclip, cloud or dishwasher?

The second option simply asks us to invert all of the described attributes, leaving only the subject unchanged, which gives us adult boy working. For a long time this theory worked fine and the land was green and good, until the crystal cracked.

A fringe theory broke off from opposite attribute theory, and it asked us to find the primary attribute of the subject and invert only that attribute. In this case, the primary attribute would be baby, since it most intrinsically and decisively defines the subject, boy, so we would get adult boy playing.

The difficulty with primary attribute theory is discerning which attribute is primary and whether or not it’s actually part of the subject. Some might argue that the primary attribute in this case is boy and that the subject is actually baby, but the term baby is more commonly used as an adjective to describe things like baby food, baby clothes, baby steps and baby baboons.

However, a big blue fish has two seemingly equal defining attributes. This means that there is either no correct opposite or a number of equally correct opposites, which may cause one to question the existence of moral absolutes.

The third option, complete opposite theory, would have us invert both the attributes, baby and playing, as well as the subject, boy, which produces adult girl working. Although this answer is very convincing, it gives us a result that is totally dissimilar to the original. This method is surely logical, but it breaks down when we apply it to certain well-known opposites.

We all know the opposite of walking forward is walking backward, not running or crawling backward. We also know that the opposite of a human getting older is a human getting younger, not a non-human getting younger. This is because opposites must share a point of reference, which is usually the subject. If they don’t, then we end up with two things that are totally different, which is not what opposites are about. This method also suffers from the same problem as opposite subject theory, since both require the subject to be inverted.

Now let’s take a look at both of the types of opposites as well as each of the theories we explored. In order to help us understand opposites more clearly, let’s use mathematic expressions for both polar and binary opposites with each of the theories applied.

Expression Polar Opposite
Subject Attribute(s) Primary Attribute Complete
x -x Not Applicable Not Applicable -x
x+1 -x+1 x-1 x-1 -x-1
5x-5 5(-x)-5 -5x+5 -5x-5 -5(-x)+5
1(-x+1)^-1 1(x+1)^-1 -1(-x-1)^1 1(-x+1)^1 -1(x-1)^1
Expression Binary Opposite
Subject Attribute(s) Primary Attribute Complete
x y Not Applicable Not Applicable y
x+1 y+1 x+0 x+0 y+0
5x-5 5y-5 5x-5 5x-5 5y-5
1(-x+1)^-1 1(-y+1)^-1 0(-x+0)^0 1(-x+1)^0 0(-y+0)^0

As we can see, we get very different answers depending on how we go about getting our opposites. And even when we use numbers, opposites are not easily determined. Although in these examples we can simply use the order of operations to determine the primary attribute, we still run into difficulty with multiple operations of the same order.

It’s easy to see that the polar opposite of x is -x, and the binary opposite is y. Likewise, the polar opposite of 1 is obviously -1, and the binary opposite is even more obviously 0. However, while the polar opposite of 5 is clearly -5, there is no binary opposite to such a number. Just like dishwashers and many other real-world examples, most numbers don’t have binary opposites, which means we must use the polar opposite, since the alternative could mean inverting nothing at all. Now we see that no opposite type or theory is fully adequate, since they all have exceptions.

So how do we know when to use polar opposites and when to use binary opposites? Determining the opposite of an attribute is relatively simple, since adjectives usually fall on a spectrum. For subjects, however, one tactic we can use is to test for an obvious binary opposite before exploring polar opposites. Since not all subjects have a binary opposite, it would make sense to first test to see if it has a well-known counterpart.

Now which theory is most versatile and consistently produces meaningful opposites? Opposite subject theory can force us to conjure up ridiculous nonexistent beings or mechanisms to find an opposite, and opposite attribute theory can produce results that are too dissimilar to be recognized as an opposite. Complete opposite theory, while perhaps the most logical, suffers from both of these complications. Opposite primary attribute theory, on the other hand, allows us to avoid silly subject opposites and also yields recognizable and meaningful opposites.

So how do we resolve subjects that have multiple attributes but no primary attribute? In other words, what if our adjectives aren’t cumulative? Well, just as a subject may have more than one opposite, there can also be more than one opposite when there is no primary attribute. If both attributes are equally describe the subject, a wise strategy would be to choose the one that is most easily inverted. This would turn our big blue fish into a small blue fish, since it’s much simpler to determine the opposite of big than blue. If one attribute is not easier to invert than another, then it may be acceptable to invert both or all of the attributes.

But sometimes one of the attributes, though just as significant or even more significant than the others, just doesn’t make sense when inverted alone. So if we had to find the opposite of a generous friend giving money, it wouldn’t be a selfish friend lending money. A generous friend taking money doesn’t make much sense either. It would be best to invert both generous and giving, making this person a selfish friend taking money, which makes a lot more sense.

Some people have difficulty just identifying attributes of a subject, let alone determining which one to invert. This is because attributes are not equal to adjectives. Attributes are features or characteristics of the subject. In the example above, a generous friend giving money, generous is obviously one of the attributes of friend, but what about giving money? The term giving is not an attribute on its own, and neither is money, for if we separate them, then there are two subjects: friend and money. No, in this case giving money is the second attribute of friend, because we all know that the opposite of giving money is taking money, not taking non-money. In a way, each attribute is treated as its own separate opposite before being tested against any other attributes and then applied to the original subject.

The only other obstacle that runs this theory ashore is a subject with no describing attributes. In these cases, we can defer to opposite subject theory, since that is the only remaining solution. Now let’s see how it works.

Original Opposite(s) Explanation
A Chicken An Egg No attributes, invert subject. Chicken and egg are binary opposites.
Sea Land Sky No attributes, invert subject. Sea, land and sky are binary opposites.
A Giant Chicken A Tiny Chicken Giant and tiny are polar opposites.
A Skilled Carpenter A Clumsy Carpenter Skilled and clumsy are polar opposites.
An Emotional Romance Movie A Dull Romance Movie Cumulative adjectives. Emotional is easier to invert than romance.
A Beautiful, New House An Ugly, New House A Beautiful, Old House An Ugly, Old House Coordinate (independent) adjectives. No primary attribute.
A Shy Girl on a Blind Date An Outgoing Girl on a Blind Date Shy is the primary attribute. Shy is easier to invert than on a blind date.
A Horrible Disease That Kills Quickly A Horrible Disease That Kills Slowly Horrible is the primary attribute, but inverting it doesn’t make sense.
A Strong, Handsome Hero A Weak, Hideous Hero A Strong, Hideous Hero A Weak, Hideous Hero Coordinate (independent) adjectives. No primary attribute.
An Honest Lawyer Telling the Truth A Dishonest Lawyer Telling Lies Honest is the primary attribute, but inverting it alone doesn’t make sense.

As we can see, the answer largely depends on context. It seems strange that the opposite of a chicken is an egg while the opposite of a giant chicken isn’t a giant egg. However, if our attribute was friendly, rather than giant, then it would seem silly to invert the subject, since eggs are hardly friendly at all.

Likewise, it would appear to many that the opposite of a strong, handsome hero must be a villain, since they could be considered both polar and binary opposites. But again, inverting the subject is only tempting in these situations because there is an obvious opposite to the subject. If it was a Russian farmer who was strong and handsome, then we would be much less inclined to find the subject’s opposite. As a final example of opposites, let’s consider the case of one of the most popular comic book heroes of all time: Superman.

Superman has faced many foes over the years, including cyborgs, monkeys, millionaires, thieves, ghosts, gods, demons, environmentalists, Kryptonians, scientists, magicians, aliens and many others. Although Superman has handled a wide variety of villains, some of them are more memorable than others. This is because a good villain is the antithesis of the hero, standing against what the hero stands for and embodying virtues that oppose those of the hero. Most heroes have an archenemy or nemesis, which is usually a being who is their perfect opposite.

Although many would identify Lex Luthor as Superman’s nemesis, there have been several attempts to create an evil counterpart to the Man of Steel. Ultra-Humanite, Lex Luthor, Ultraman and Bizarro were all made with the intent of producing a villain who is completely contrary to Superman, but did any of them really succeed?

These four foes basically fall into two categories: the ones with superpowers and the ones without. Ultraman and Bizarro have similar or identical physical powers to those of Superman, such as flight and super-strength, while Ultra-Humanite and Lex Luthor have only increased intellectual abilities. Ultra-Humanite even possesses a crippled body, which was meant to make him a more complete opposite of Superman.

Also, in Kill Bill: Vol. 2, David Carradine’s character argues that the antithesis of Superman is actually Clark Kent – a cowardly, benign human with no interest in helping or hurting others. So which one of these characters is the true opposite of Superman? Let’s take a look at each of them and see whether they are using polar or binary opposites and which opposite theories are being applied.

Character Features
Strength Intelligence Super Powers Personality
Superman Super Normal Flight, Heat Vision, Freeze Breath, etc. Selfless, Humble, Honest
Ultra-Humanite Limited Super None Selfish, Insane, Hateful
Lex Luthor Normal Super None Selfish, Ambitious, Deceitful
Ultraman Super Normal Flight, Heat Vision, Freeze Breath, etc. Selfish, Ambitious, Deceitful
Bizarro Super Limited Flight, Freeze Vision, Flame Breath, etc. Confused
Clark Kent Normal Normal None Disengaged, Timid, Fearful

As we can see, each villain has its own approach to opposing Superman’s features. Ultra-Humanite and Lex Luthor mirror Superman’s incredible physical abilities with intellectual abilities, since they are binary opposites, with Ultra-Humanite’s inferior physical strength representing a polar opposite. In the same way, Bizarro’s limited intelligence is an attempt to mirror Superman’s normal intelligence, though also serving to separate him from other villains. Instead of contrasting Superman’s physical abilities, Ultraman and Bizarro share Superman’s powers, but some of Bizarro’s abilities are actually inverted from those of Superman.

As far as personality and behavior goes, Bizarro again separates himself from the pack with a lack of obvious maniacal intent. Superman is good, and the opposite of good is evil, so it would make sense to have an evil nemesis. But Bizarro, like the other villains, is a combination of opposite types and theories, so it’s likely that his creators were merely attempting to make a character who was extremely dissimilar to Superman in all respects. Unfortunately this doesn’t explain why Bizarro flies instead of digging and why he isn’t physically weak like other villains.

Clark Kent, on the other hand, embodies not the opposite of Superman’s features, but the absence of them. And, as we already discussed earlier, the opposite of something is not nothing. If Clark Kent was the opposite of Superman, then he would also be the opposite of Lex Luthor, Bizzaro and any other extraordinary character.

Of all of Superman’s Enemies, Bizarro is the most obvious attempt to create a complete opposite. Bizarro’s creators even went to so far as to give him the ability to see a short distance behind his head, which is supposed to be the opposite of Superman’s ability to see a great distance in front of him. Although they obviously went to great length to ensure that Bizarro was the complete opposite of Superman, they ultimately failed. This is because there can be no true complete opposite of something with as many characteristics as a person, especially when we know so much about them.

Superman is not just a Superhero with superpowers, he’s an alien, an idealist, a person of moderate height and intelligence, he’s brave, friendly, helpful and good-looking, he has short, dark hair, he’s not an amputee or a football player, he never gets sick, he can see, smell, taste, touch and hear, he’s emotionally stable, he sleeps in a bed and so on.

This is why complete opposite theory and opposite attribute theory can’t work: there are too many characteristics to invert. As we already discussed, the best way to find the opposite of something is to invert its primary attribute or attributes, so we need to ask ourselves what are the most defining features?

Well, since Superman is the only Kryptonian on Earth, that would be a good place to start. He also possesses incredible physical powers that other people do not, and he’s a hero who has dedicated himself to defending Earth and its inhabitants from evil. What’s the opposite of a physically powerful alien selflessly protecting others? Probably an intellectually powerful human selfishly exploiting others.