a small dark light

On Men and Women Navigating Differently

2010-05-30T16:16:00.000-04:00

"Previous work has shown that men tend to navigate by creating mental maps of a territory and then imagining their position on the maps. Women are more likely to remember their routes using landmarks." (The Economist)

"The research suggests that in certain circumstances women are better at navigating than men. Which might lend some comfort to a man desperately searching for an item in a supermarket while his exasperated wife methodically moves around the aisles filling the shopping trolley. He is simply not cut out for the job, evolutionarily speaking." (The Economist)

That is exactly how I shop. I look at the first item on my list, and then I make a beeline for where I think it is, and then search the entire store for it, and after 20 minutes give up and move to the next item. I'll get what I want, but it will take an hour. Perhaps I should learn to shop more like a women instead.

On Goldman Sachs Hearing (April 2010)

2010-05-30T16:07:00.000-04:00

"He must have wondered whether Goldman would have been better off politically had it incurred giant losses, like Citigroup." (The Economist)

What Goldman did: realize there's a bubble, stop fueling it, limit taxpayer cost, pay back taxpayers, limit bonuses.

What everyone else did: realize there's a bubble, keep fueling it, lose as much money as possible, the taxpayer covers it all anyway, bonuses all around.

Goldman Sachs will have learned it's lesson and never do the responsible thing again.

"New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo questioned Goldman's decision to pay 1556 employees bonuses of at least $1 million after it received TARP funds in 2008,[27] That same period, however, CEO Lloyd Blankfein and six other senior executives opted to forgo bonuses, stating they believed it was the right thing to do, in light of "the fact that we are part of an industry that's directly associated with the ongoing economic distress."[28] Attorney General Cuomo called the move "appropriate and prudent," and urged the executives of other banks to follow the firm's lead and refuse bonus payments.

"In June 2009, Goldman Sachs repaid the U.S. Treasury’s TARP investment, with 23% interest (in the form of $318 million in preferred dividend payments and $1.418 billion in warrant redemptions).[29] In December 2009, Goldman announced their top 30 executives will be paid year-end bonuses in restricted stock, with clawback provisions, that must go unsold for five years.[30][31]" (Wikipedia)

Gender-Neutral Address

2010-05-09T03:32:00.001-04:00

Why is it that gender-neutral honorifics sound somewhat fascist?

For example: Citizen So-and-so, Comrade Such-and-such

Reason:

1/2 Anti-communist propaganda

1/2 Accidental association with portrayals of future utopic/dystopic societies with gender-neutrality

Before China's Reform and Opening, spoken Chinese was almost completely gender (and class) neutral.

- àirén, partner (wife or husband)

- tā, he/she/it

- tóngzhì, Ms./Mrs./Miss/Mr./Master (glossed in America as comrade)

Now terms like wife, husband, and Miss are making a comeback.

How about gender-neutral address English? I'd recommend using either gender-neutral "sir" alone or last name alone (with no honorific). Students refer to professors (not direct address) this way. Students sometimes refer to each other by last name too--well, mostly on crew team.

I'm also a big fan of the gender (and class) neutral honorific Teach(er) for primary/high school teachers (as opposed to Mr./Ms.) and college professors. The Chinese professors here traditionally are called lǎoshī (teacher) instead of jiāoshòu (professor).

Using Opcit.sty for LaTeX

2010-05-05T08:43:00.003-04:00

The Opcit 2 Package for LaTeX

by Federico Garcia (2006)

How to automatically typeset Chicago-style footnotes and bibliography!

This post assumes you already know LaTeX and BibTeX (see wiki)

Step 1: Download opcit.sty (ver. 2) and save to /Users/sunderland/Library/texmf/tex/latex
Step 2: Download opcit.bst (ver. 2) and save to /Users/sunderland/Library/texmf/bibtex

Step 3: Add \usepackage{opcit} to the preamble of your given LaTeX file (.tex)

Step 4: Do not add \bibliographystyle{opcit} to the end of your body before \bibliography{} and \end{document}

Step 5: For specific details see the guide: opcit.pdf

Troubleshooting

1) If no references get typeset,
- typeset your .tex file (i.e., using TeXShop); then typeset your .bib file (remember to select "BibTeX" mode if you use TeXShop), then typeset your .tex file again twice
- note that only references cited in your .tex file will display in the bibliography, unless you force them all to be displayed with \nocite{*}

2) If you get the error "No `"' to end string literal---line 552 of file opcit.bst" replace in opcit.bst:

551 'skip$
552 { "\bibpunctuation'' \newblock\toomit[howpublished] {\bibcase
553 " howpublished * write$
554 "}" 'quotes :=
555 }

with

551 'skip$
552 { "\bibpunctuation'' \newblock\toomit[howpublished]{\bibcase"
553 howpublished * write$
554 "}" 'quotes :=
555 }

(Thank you Jan for last troubleshooting fix)

Regulatory Solution

2010-04-28T04:32:00.000-04:00

Limiting non-interest income to 15% for all companies that want FDIC insurance.

(Further) reducing the Fed's "regulatory tax" (RR) on banking will lower the break-even interest spread for banks (now 450bp).

Feldman, Ron J., Jason Schmidt. "Noninterest income: A potential for profits, risk reduction and some exaggerated claims." Fedgazette (1999-10).

App Wanted: PDF Printing Optimizer

2010-04-27T23:58:00.000-04:00

I want an app (perhaps an iPhone app) that easily optimizes PDFs with large amounts of white space around a small block of text. It doesn't have to be fully automatic: the user can go about adjusting the crop box around the text--the whole point of the app is to automatically create a new PDF with the cropped areas enlarged either to a full letter page or half of one (two former pages to one).

I once spent too long manually optimizing a PDF for printing because our school charges $0.04 per page. The printed result looked good and was easier to read--but not worth an hour of my time.

Re: Kumar David Re: Stiglitz

2010-04-27T23:19:00.001-04:00

"None of the bourgeois world’s panjandrums, Stiglitz included, dare whisper that GC-2008 may be a failure of capitalism itself."

Failure to do what?
And what is "capitalism"?
One flatters the word by assigning conceptual cohesiveness to it.
Perhaps I flatter this unknown newspaper by posting.

In any case, "GC-2008" probably isn't the "big one," at least not according to Stiglitz.

Middlebury Downtown Traffic Circle Proposal

2010-04-22T05:20:00.000-04:00

-- Post From My iPhone

Location:S St Estates,Middlebury,United States

Sexual Racism and Porn

2010-04-21T20:37:00.000-04:00

Re: Prof. C. S. Han lecture

Pornography may play a role in the induction of sexual preferences based on race.

The status-quo (where asians are both desexualized and pederastically fetishized by society) may also be a Nash--
no one has incentive to deviate unilaterally:
- people who watch pornography with a certain race have no incentive to deviate unilaterally (they prefer it; it is the most "effective" porn to them)
- producers have no incentive to deviate unilaterally (people will simply watch pornography produced by other companies)
- even porn websites have no incentive to deviate unilaterally from having a search-by-race function on their website and allowing racial tags to be searched (people will simply start using other porn websites)

This may be a sub-optimal Nash--everyone loses/could have better, but no one will change their behavior unilaterally/without collective action:
- Porn producers wouldn't care if ALL porn producers were barred from racial hiring. Porn producers would actually love it if they could produce porn race-blind, because they would have access to a much larger pool of labor, and thus can access better actors for lower cost; the average cost of labor should go down while the quality of porn should go up
- Actors would love it if hiring was race-blind, because they would have access to a much larger pool of employment. Actors as a whole will have more bargining power to demand better/safer conditions because the opportunity cost of rejecting poor/unsafe conditions is lower when you have a/many second best options.
- Porn websites would not care as long as ALL porn websites were barred from racial searching
- Race-disciminating viewers would in the *short-run* lose utility--in the way southerners after desegregation in the short run lost utility; however long-run preferances of this kind are *very* susceptible to change based on habit. Addiction is the classic example of an "endogenous preference." "Racial taste in pronography" seems to also be endogenous. Sexual orientation, however, seems to be much more exogenous, exhibiting the classical unique equilibrium.

The winners: everyone collectively
He losers: actors and producers without talent that are currently protected from competition by racism

Therefore there appears to be a economic/game-theoretic case for regulating, in the short term, race (until the new equilibrium establishes itself) in the porn industry as a way of overcoming path dependency/choosing a new Nash.

Obviously, pornography is only one factor contributing to "taste" in the individual. Most importantly, it may play a necessary (and not sufficient) or *sustaining* role: it might *sustain* a Nash that would otherwise not emerge in the *current* times (whereas during the founding of videographic porn, it was the unique Nash in a racist climate).

Child pornography may be very similar. The regulation of child pornography might do more than simply protect children's rights, it might also prevent a Nash at pederasty being the norm.

See also:
Fisman, Raymond, Sheena S. Iyengar, Emir Kamenica, & Itamar Simonson. "Racial Preferences in Dating" (unpublished draft, 2007-05-11).

-- Post From My iPhone

Location:S Main St,Middlebury,United States

Naturally Sweetened with Sugar

2010-04-19T00:27:00.000-04:00

-- Post From My iPhone

Location:S Main St,Middlebury,United States

Redux: two replies

2010-04-17T16:20:00.000-04:00

1. People aren't rational.

What is rationality anyway? Every paper defines "it" differently. The statements "people are rational" and "people aren't rational" both contain almost no information.

2. People can't be modeled.

If you publish a paper in social science, then you have modeled human behavior. If you debate a bill in the senate floor, you are modelling human behavior.

It might not look like a model because there are no numbers--but that does not mean we have not "quantified" people! We have simply quantified/reduced them *further*.

For example, a model that assumes people belong to one of two classes makes a vast generalization: quantifying/reducing human beings as/to 0 or 1. Many "capitalist" models from the end of the 19th century made the same generalization, probably because it was useful then. But people are not laborers or capitalists, they are individuals.

"All models are wrong, some models are useful."

A model is "wrong" because it fails to capture all the information of a system. A model that reduces a person to "having white privledge" fails to capture literally all but 1 binary bit of information. Is the model still useful in some context? **Most probably!**

One of the dangers of oversimplification (loss of information) is failure to capture complexity in a complex system.

-- Post From My iPhone

Location:S St Estates,Middlebury,United States

Lying

2010-04-17T14:04:00.000-04:00

Even if you are confiding in someone, they will read into your motives for telling them. You can assume people won't judge you for honesty, but also learn to predict how others will interpret what you say and how you say it. It sounds strategic. But it's not about moral, it's about communication--

If you speak the truth and the other person hears a lie about yourself, then you have communicated a lie.

-- Post From My iPhone

Location:S St Estates,Middlebury,United States

Neurotypical Hegemony

2010-04-16T18:15:00.003-04:00

If I were a sociology major, I would do my thesis on Neurotypical Hegemony.

When I write for myself, I sometimes spend hours organizing it according to a meticulous logic. Unfortunately, I have learned that only other people with similar neurology (~5% pop) understand the logic.

I could do my thesis on being systematically disadvantaged for my brain's internal logic.

The writing that is logical to me is:

- defined by society as having either BAD logic or NO logic/organization, which is true only if you define good logic or logic itself as neurotypical logic

- is academically punished

We could conversely grade papers on a ADD logic reubrik. In which case, it would be almost impossible for NTs to write a "good" "high marks" "well organized" "having any organization at all" paper.

Interestingly (though it makes sense), when I take medication, all of the sudden I understand all the things that writing teachers have ever told me and I suddenly see the logic that the teacher/society wants me to use to organize my paper--I see the NT logic which I formerly suspected did not exist. But my suspicion was tempered by the knowledge that society believes it exists, which resulted in confusion/dissonance.

That is why it is completely understandable to me that NTs are unable to see the logic of my papers--I could not see the logic of theirs... until I changed my brainwave ratios to a more NT pattern. The difference is that when NTs suspect that my paper's logic does not exist, society confirms their suspicion.

Should China Romanize

2010-04-15T18:40:00.000-04:00

In my Chinese Sociolinguistics class we debated the Romanization of Chinese. The purpose of class debates is to exhaust all the points and issues on both sides--and there were a lot yesterday.

Obviously the question is only an intellectual excersise in contemporary times--should China *Romanize if it could*.

But even as a hypothetical, I agree with the vast majority of Chinese on the negative.

There are so many arguments, especially for Romanization, but I am swayed by two:
- can you imagine how ugly it would be when you walk outside and all the storefront awnings are in pinyin?
- such a decision cannot be reversed, and that scares me

We can always Romanize later if a compelling argument comes with some development in social science. I really feel we know far too little about the implications--and too little in general--to make a decision that can't be taken back. There might yet be some crucial additional use for Characters. Sure they are inefficient, *but there is use in inefficient things*.

-- Post From My iPhone

Location:S St Estates,Middlebury,United States

Econ Profs Playing Cricket

2010-04-12T16:47:00.000-04:00

-- Post From My iPhone

Location:College St,Middlebury,United States

Baking Divorce Cookies

2010-04-11T21:46:00.000-04:00

Starr Lounge

-- Post From My iPhone

Location:Franklin St,Middlebury,United States

Sleepy Sunday

2010-04-11T11:48:00.000-04:00

Thomas the Cat, Snoring

-- Post From My iPhone

Location:Peru, NY

Double luck

2010-04-11T10:43:00.000-04:00

Double yolk, double luck!

-- Post From My iPhone

Location:Peru,United States

Where Sociologists and Laissez-faire Agree

2010-04-01T15:02:00.008-04:00

An economic theory says "if x, then y"

or "when these assumptions x hold, we will see this outcome y"

Heuristically,

we might have some classical theory that says:

"if people are 'rational,' then Depressions won't happen"

We have observed a Great Depression.

Classical economists look at this and say,

people must have been acting irrationally.

Economists nowadays look at this and say,

has it occurred to anyone that maybe the theory itself was wrong?

Interestingly, when data contradicting a classical theory comes out,

'critics of economics' tend to discard the assumptions,

and forget that we can discard the theory that "this x implies that y"!

If you have ever said "this counterexample proves that your theory's assumptions are wrong," you have implicitly assumed that the theory (that x implies y) is correct! Indeed, the statement in quotes above is a restatement of the theory (it's contrapositive, a logical equivalent).

Note, I said heuristically because I'm not talking about general economic concepts and not formal modeling. The difference is that the x's and y's are explicitly formulated, therefore the x's and y's are obviously "wrong" (not reality), and the "x implies y" part is proven.

When we say "all models are wrong, some models are useful" we mean that the x's (assumptions) are always not realistic. The "correctness" of the model itself, "x implies y" is not in question and not relevant.

When a model is not useful, the model's formal "x implies y" part is still "correct," though the heuristic model in the paper's conclusion is "wrong."

Second tangent: If you consider these heuristic models to be "real" in the sense that "that's how the world works" (think hard sciences), then we can never prove them like a theorem, we can only arrive at it as a theory supported by an overwhelming body of evidence.

This is the difference between science and mathematics.

For example, an economy theory says that "this can explain the data," but that doesn't mean it's "right" (you can't prove x=>y by observing y like in math). It's a boon to economists (and any scientist) when a theory that previously explained all the data cannot explain something. The thing to hope for is that mathematics has produced a tool (that means a new sub-field really) to apply. And in practice it usually has, it has just been ignored because you didn't need it when the old theories worked.

Paper, NIT, and Sky Trust

2010-03-12T01:26:00.002-05:00

Middlebury College this semester instituted a fee for printing, 5 cents per page, 8 cents per double sided sheet. Everyone is given $25 credit to begin with.

This behaves like the proposed Negative Income Tax (NIT).
It also behaves like the proposed Sky Trust.

NIT and Sky Trust have different uses of course. NIT is meant to be a safety net for adults--no food stamps, no forms, just money because we trust the starving to spend money we give them on food and not, say, the ponies.

Sky Trust is supposed to have the effect of reducing consumption of some resource (oil) without anyone feeling the hurt (minimizing deadweight loss). The idea is simple: tax oil use, and then distribute the tax revenue back to all Americans equally in a "citizen's dividend." It's economically beautiful and politically infeasible--there is no patronage to be had.

Middlebury's new printing model is like the Sky Trust. It is supposed to curb printing in the short term, as well as change people's habits in order to curb printing in the long term.

I have already switched to reading articles and readings for class on the computer. It is actually more convenient because I can search for specific words (and instantly find wherever my teacher is in the text in class, even if there are 100 pages!), I can highlight text in 6 different colors with a click of a button, I can type in margin annotations, and much more.

My long-term printing habits have been changed.

Ponzi Scheme

2010-03-12T01:21:00.003-05:00

Various Economic processes are often described as Ponzi schemes. I thought about it--and they're right. But then I thought about it some more, and realized that it's all a Ponzi scheme--life, liberty, government, economy, money, happiness. I'm being facetious, but the point is real--the line between ponzi-scheme and non-ponzi scheme might be opinion.

There is a similar opinion-based line between "real" value and "false" value. I sometimes hear populists left over from the 1890s in Harlem go on about the meaninglessness and intrinsic-value-lackingness of fiat money versus gold. What gives gold real value? It's useful? To whom? People! And are you telling me that pieces of green paper with dead presidents stamped on it is not useful?

identity and change

2010-02-28T23:33:00.006-05:00

people do not "change"--we change every day of our lives.

what stays the same?

you am still you, i am still i.

the rest is conditional.

and there is no need for identity crises over conditional things.

there is no need to fear that "i am not me anymore"

because of some "change" in behavior (learning)--

such as using "am me" when former Latin students tend to use "am i"

(if other Latin students call me not a real Latin student,

does that mean that "i am not me anymore"?)

identity is a powerful and useful labor saving tool.

this tool indeed has power in society,

but it is illusion.

many illusions have power over people;

this fact is not necessarily bad or good.

if the tool is no longer useful, discard it.

i may call my political views somewhat libertarian,

but only because it helps me quickly answer questions in a helpful way;

the identity is "real" in the sense that it is true,

my political views are my political views,

and they change every second of the day by definition.

some people find it useful to think of identity as either extrinsic or intrinsic; the first is how others/society sees you, the second is how you choose to see yourself--completely choice, tautological, trivial, unfalsifiable, and irrelevant.

Humor and Power

2010-02-26T13:42:00.004-05:00

People sometimes use humor to empower--themselves, others, or groups; intentionally or unintentionally.

I learned long ago that if you want someone to stop teasing you, you can either threaten them (threaten to hit them, tell the teacher, stop playing with them, etc...), physically stop them (knock them out, kill them, etc...), leave the teaser's mind (i.e., change friend groups, change schools, kill the teaser, etc...), or take the teasing in stride.

For the taking-it-in-stride method to work, you have to be able to back it up; you have to take it in stride in front of the teaser and in your own mind/on your own time. Then the teasing has no power over you.

If the teasing was only meant to intimidate you, the teasing will stop.

If the teasing was meant to intimidate you and the teaser has other processes sustaining the behavior (cognitive, physiological, or external), then the teasing won't stop.
- If you can continue to truly take it in stride, then teasing will continue not to matter.
- However, continual abuse will eventually lead to burnout, so if the signs point to the situation above, it is usually best to remove yourself from the situation.
- The human capacity for anger might also have use, though in some situations it is too unsafe not to temporarily suppress it.

If the teasing was actually meant to cause pleasure in you (teasing, humor, tickling, etc... among trustworthy friends is generally observed to cause pleasure in the brain--for humans, other primates, dogs, and other animals), then it will not stop (unless you tell them to stop, with body language or words).

The options above are not actually two functions of humor; the distinction is quite arbitrary. There is one model/function that covers both--making social bonds (organizing social groups).

The existence of humor in an animal is a tautological question--all animals interact with other animals, so there is also opportunity for something like humor, though if the interaction is very dissimilar from human interaction, it is difficult to convince someone that a certain phenomenon is humor. A mama primate might pretend to tickle her baby and the baby will laugh--this is easily considered humor. A dog might pretend to bite me and then laugh "he-he-he"--almost as easy. A cat might dance in the snow or pretend to fight--easy but less so (cats are "less social"--meaning intra-species interaction is more dissimilar from Human and Dog). Hamster, bacteria, and pine tree humor is more or less impenetrable to Humans, but does that mean they have or have not humor?

Nothing my parakeets do looks like humor to me, but I can't say that they don't crack each other up (and they certainly crack me up!). Parakeets are definitely social animals, but they are not mammals. Cognate mammal signals are often similar enough that a Human and a Dog can "get" the same joke, and a hamster can "look" feminine, whereas it is more difficult to anthromopomorphize a hawk or pine tree as feminine. Of course, "getting" a joke versus "being" the joke is a human fabrication. It is completely plausible that two people--or two species--can laughing at the same joke at the "expense of the other person."

No soap, Radio illustrates this point, precicely because the person pulling the joke might not "get it" (get "this point") themselves (by attaching a value to observation of mob mentality), but that doesn't mean the joke is or isn't on them. What's "this point" I mention before? If anyone could say it in words, I would. I can only hope to spark an insight: Is the joke funny because everyone thinks it's funny? Do I get the joke mostly because I am convinced that I get it; does he get the joke mostly because I am convinced that he doesn't get it?

I see an ineffable connection between the question "What's the difference between someone laughing at you and someone laughing with you?" and "What's the difference between a inter-species parasitic relationship and a symbiotic relationship?" Values? (Of course, what's the difference between a value judgement and an objective judgement? Also values?)

"Does [a certain] organism have humor" is a meaningless (tautological) question. The tractible question is what models (definitions) of human humor include behaviors of other organisms? Can we think of progressively "abstract" (less human specific) models that include surprising examples of behavior in other organisms? Such research would be biology but not medicine, a "sub"-field with probably no chance of funding in the near future. I suspect that a little game theory might also help in "non-human humor research" by allowing us to define more abstract models of humor. Who knows, were we to do such research long enough, we are more than likely to find something relevant to medicine; i.e., along the (highly abstractified) heuristic of using humor to mitigate conflict.

Middlebury's New Financial Model

2010-02-23T22:16:00.003-05:00

Middlebury College is adopting a new financial plan, where the Undergraduate program will rely less on the endowment (expecting 5%/yr instead of 9%/yr), less on tuition (limiting increases to 1% above inflation), and more on Middlebury College's affiliates--namely the summer Language Schools, the Monterey Institute, the C.V. Star Schools abroad, and the Bread Loaf School of English.

This sounds great to me. Middlebury bought Monterey 5 years ago when it was in serious financial trouble. The new plan seems to frame the relationship between Middlebury College and it's affiliates as insurance. Most of the time, these affiliated schools generate income overall, and can send surpluses to Middlebury College (giving them more freedom to end the fiscal year in the black and Middlebury College in the red than as individual non-profits). In return, when these schools take rare, temporary, periodic, catastrophic hits, Middlebury will bail them out--like an insurance agency.

"If all circles were large and this small triangle ▵ were a circle, would it be large?"

2010-02-10T22:27:00.005-05:00

"If all circles were large and this small triangle ▵ were a circle, would it be large?"

This question was used in a study by Alfred H. Bloom, published in his book The linguistic shaping of thought (1981).

Bloom's study claims that because the Chinese language lacks a grammatical marker equivalent to the counterfactual conditional in English, Chinese speakers do not develop the corresponding cognitive schema and thus process counterfactuals less naturally than English speakers.

Alfred H. Bloom was the President of Swarthmore College from 1991 to 2009!

Bloom is a psychologist and self-described linguist. His only article that appears in JSTOR scholarly journal search is "The Impact of Chinese Linguistic Structure on Cognitive Style," Current Anthropology, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1979), pp. 585-586, which is about the same study.

My theory is that Bloom's results had more to do with the subjects' expectations (metalinguistic interpretation of assumptions implied by question/format) based on past examples. The only reason I know what the "right" answer (and it is obviously and unambiguously right) for an SAT question is because I've seen many SAT questions before, and have figured out what implicit assumptions the SAT makes (even if I can't verbalize those assumptions).

Interestingly, in The Chinese Literary Tradition, a class I took last spring, we learned that the inscriptions on the oracle bones were marked with something like contrary-to-fact for undesirable predictions (phrased as a question).

Modern Chinese marks hypothetical if...than statements by using different words for "if": ruguo (or jiaru or ruoshi) for hypothetical "if," zhiyou...jiu for conditional "if...than".

~~~~

Did you know that simplified forms have co-existed, many since the invention of Chinese characters--the simplified 个 ("traditional form": 個) appears on the oracle bones! Both the Republic of China and PRC worked on standardization of simplified forms, but the ROC later decided to standardize written Chinese to reflect the opposite of whatever the communists did (i.e., banning 个 in favor of the "traditional" 個, both of which have co-existed for three thousand years).

OR: models

2010-02-09T17:30:00.003-05:00

In my opinion, the use of mathematical/economic models is that *we don't have to generalize as much*. When we limit ourselves to words and avoid the use of numbers, we might generalize a multivariate, complex situation to a much simpler one. There is no meaningful contrast between "logical reasoning" and "mathematical models"--"real" facts, reasoning, and a spreadsheet full of "real numbers" can all be considered models (though many would refuse to consider "real" information to be models). If you pass legislation that affects the future, the content of debate on the senate floor can be considered models.

Proving things using formal logic requires very strong statements and assumptions (for all x, we have y), which may alter the outcome substantially (especially in situations involving complexity--It is rather difficult to predict emergence only using predicate logic.). For example, Aristotle used the rather strong assumption: ALL physical objects in the absence of disturbing will come to rest. It is quite difficult to say the least to prove something is the best decision if we limit ourselves to only taking assumptions not involving numbers--because the only assumptions left are so very strong (i.e., a=>b).

All models are wrong; some models are useful.
- George Box, statistician (generally attributed)

Of course, it is difficult to see when assumptions are unreasonable. That goes for assumptions of the form "best decision"=max{x|...}, and of the form "a=>b for most a and b."

Especially dangerous is when people try to make it look like they're doing operations research, when really they're just throwing numbers on conclusions made in the form "a=>b for most a and b" and failing to take things like complexity into account at all. In other words, don't judge the validity of a model based on the probability that it is valid enough to be useful given that it contains numbers versus the probability that it is valid enough to be useful given that it does not contain numbers--there is probably a small difference in probability (which could go either way--who knows!) that we could calculate based on Bay's law, but this probability difference could go either way, will change over time (even in response to printing such a report!--there might be cyclic trends or long term trends in the value or in it's probability distribution; the value might follow Brownian motion; and the rules might change completely over time), is almost certainly too small to be significant (i.e., validity and having numbers are functionally probabilistically independent--we know the two are not dependent such that their state space are concentric or disjoint like a causal relationship, but the probability distribution might not be mathematically independent). My guess is that they are probabilistically independent (to a relevant number of significant digits).

Regulation Q

2010-02-01T14:00:00.002-05:00

Did you know that Regulation Q (introduced in 1933, phased out for non-checking accounts in the 1980s) was a regulation that set a ceiling on the interest banks could pay?

I wonder what the typical interest rates banks paid on deposits before 1933. I wonder if the regulation had lasting effects that outlived its phasing out (like that Freakenomics anecdote about how charging late fees for parents picking up kids at day care caused lateness to jump catastrophically, and removing the fee had no effect). When the regulation was phased out for non-checking accounts, interest on deposits had been suppressed below interest on everything else for 50 years. 70 year olds in 1980 had been earning Regulation Q influenced interest on deposits from the age of 20 to the age of 70. How many years had they earned pre-Regulation Q interest on deposits? 2? 4? Teenage years may be formative, but day-in-day-out 50 years--your entire carrer and much (on average all) of your retirement might be more formative.

If people don't expect to earn money on deposits any more, undoing the regulation would not undo the effect.

I suppose this is sorta like the reasoning behind affirmative action. Though of course, just because stopping the action didn't help, we can't conclude that doing the opposite would help either--would paying parents for picking up kids at day care late cause them to stop picking kids up late? (Probably not, though it might, if it were framed as shaming)

Credit

2010-01-28T14:20:00.002-05:00

I see signs that banks are tightening credit.

One bank canceled my line of credit because I never used it.

Another bank declined a small charge yesterday, even though I had enough credit, and even though customer service assured me it was not denied because they thought the card was stolen. He said it was a very rare glitch in the system, where the payment I made (13 days prior) was not posted for some reason.

My groundless theory is that they're freezing lines of credit for microseconds to prevent momentary fluctuations of debt above their own (voluntarily or involuntarily reduced) line of credit.

Or it could have just been a once-in-a-blue-moon computer malfunction, reducing my credit to 0 until a backup corrected the error.

Verizon and Hardware Crippling

2010-01-24T12:58:00.009-05:00

Verizon is known for "hardware crippling," where they disable functionality built into the hardware of their phones. After crippling, native functionality of the hardware can only be utilized at a fee. This is kinda evil, but not necessarily illegal.

False advertising is the only law legally relevant here. Extortion in the courts only refers to a written or verbal treat. Usery only refers to interest rates. Price-gouging only refers to raising prices in an emergency.

Verizon has already been involved in false advertising class-action lawsuits:

- they marketed phones as "GPS enabled," when they actually disabled it (you have to pay a monthly fee to enable it)

- they marketed phones as "full Bluetooth capability," when they actually disabled full Bluetooth capability (and removed it on certain devices)

Taking photos is normally free. A company is obviously completely within it's legal rights to sell a camera that charges you a $1 service fee every photo--but only if they explicitly advertise/market/label it as so, because a box that just says "camera" implies "free photo taking" in the marketplace.

I argue that "digital camera" implies that you can transfer the photos to your computer without a fee, unless you say otherwise.

Could a camera company get away with selling a digital camera whose box listed 100 specifications, but neglects to mention that data transfer capabilities have been disabled, and the buyer cannot download his own pictures directly, and instead must pay the camera company to pipe the pictures over the internet from camera to computer.

Could this camera company argue that:

"Data transfer capabilities were only disabled and not removed.

If the user hacks into his camera, voiding his warranty,

s/he can still access his pictures for free.

Therefore, not writing 'pictures can be accessed at a fee'

next to the word 'digital camera' on the box

does not count as false advertising.

Our service only charges for convenience."

Can this company get away with putting 'pictures can be accessed at a fee' as fine print, the same size as all the other fine print? No, they have to use very large print in this surprising case.

The Motorola RAZR hardware allows you to access the media (pictures, audio, video) that you yourself recorded using your phone for free.

Verizon admits that they crippled the V3m's hardware in order to restrict user access to copyrighted material. Therefore, whether purposely or inadvertently, they have also restricted user access to material that users themselves have recorded, forcing them to download them through Verizon's network at a fee. This is fine--as long as they appropriately advertise this fact next to the affected functionality, namely voice recording, photo taking, and video taking.

Can Verizon market a RAZR that says "2.0 megapixel camera," "voice recording," and "video recording capability," without a huge asterisk next to each and larger-than-fine print?

They might be, but only if consumers have come to expect that media recorded with cameraphones cannot be accessed without a fee (which might be the case by now, especially for the dying breed of "non-smart phones").

Unintended Consequences

2010-01-24T10:26:00.003-05:00

The only reason I am aware of the effects of Reinforcement, Escape, Punishment, and Penalty is:

to better avoid unintended operant conditioning
not to explain behavior--because Affirming the Consequent is difficult to defend; if it's not necessary or relevant or even helpful, why weaken my credibility and future effectiveness?
and certainly not to intentionally condition behavior--because unintended operant conditioning is almost unavoidable in many settings

Social Cues

2010-01-22T14:27:00.008-05:00

Loaded Questions are very different from Leading Questions.

In loaded questions, the question carries a false logical assumption.

All direct/relevant responses are false statements.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

- No, I have not stopped beating my wife.

- Yes, I have stopped beating my wife.

Neither of these statements are true if you have never beat your wife.

500,000 infants died in Iraq. Was it worth it?

- No, it was not worth it.

- Yes, it was worth it.

Neither of these statements are true if you did not cause 500,000 infants to die in Iraq.

In leading questions, posing the question implies the asker knows/believes something.

There is a direct/relevant response that is a true statement.

Were you angry at him the night of his murder?

- Yes, I was angry with him the night of his murder.

- No, I was angry with him the night of his murder.

One of these statements is true.

Direct answers to loaded questions are false because they contain false assumptions. The best (and only truthful) response is to reject the question.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

- I neither beat nor have I beaten my wife.

I asked you whether you stopped, answer the question I asked.

- How could I have stopped or not stopped beating my wife if I have never started?

Direct answers to leading questions might be used illogically to come to irrelevant false conclusions. Therefore, it is tempting to reject leading questions, but doing so has the peculiar effect of convincing listeners of whatever false conclusions you foresee!! This holds true if the asker or listener actually foresees/intends a false conclusion, and it holds true if the asker or listener cannot foresee a false conclusion from you answer. Just as the irrelevance of the leading question implies something, the irrelevance of your response can confirm that something!

In other words, rejecting leading questions will convince other people that you are guilty of something. This is not a logical response; it is a human and universal one.

For this reason, people that ask leading questions are trying to trick you into rejecting the question (replying with something that supposed to be irrelevant), not into answering it.

Rejecting non-leading questions looks even worse than rejecting leading questions. Rejecting questions in general is a form of irrelevant response, which sends the signal to listeners that there is an information asymmetry--they didn't have enough information to predict the irrelevant response. Listeners tend to: 1) become annoyed with frequent irrelevant responses messing up the flow of conversation, and 2) try to predict what information is missing. The conclusions that listeners are based on the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent" (just because something is a plausible/possible explanation doesn't mean it is the explanation). Listeners nonetheless come to these conclusions.

Another way of thinking about it, is that irrelevant responses break the social rule of keeping the scope of the conversation predictable. Leading questions themselves break this social rule; rejecting said irrelevant (leading) questions has the effect of legitimizing them, as well as breaking the scope of the conversation a second time (shifting listeners' annoyance away from the leading questioner and toward the answerer). Instead of legitimizing such questions by rejecting them, answer the question while sending nonverbal cues of slight confusion, no annoyance, and open willingness to part with the requested information because it is inconsequential, irrelevant, and innocuous.

I got a whole bunch of square roots on the test, and I think I got them right.

- That's why I taught you square roots. I tried my best to cover everything that might appear on the test, but there's never enough time.

The square roots were ok for me too. The factoring problems were difficult though.

- That's why you should have come to class on time, I covered a lot of factoring in the class because I knew you would get it on the test.

Understanding what responses sound irrelevant rests on perceiving social cues.

The typical (and best) response to an irrelevant response is: "ok."

"The Ends Justify the Means"

2010-01-16T13:11:00.005-05:00

Both "the ends justify the means" and "the ends don't justify the means" are rhetorical.

We cannot meaningfully divide policies into "the ends justify the means" and "the ends don't justify the means," nor can we meaningfully divide people into "believing the ends justify the means" and "not believing the ends justify the means."

For example, the same person that believes that racial profiling is a case of "the ends justify the means" might also believe that affirmative action is not a case of "the ends justify the means"--and vice versa. I believe it is not the people that are inconsistant, but the tool ("ends justify the means") that is unhelpful.

It is not useful to divide the impact of policy into "ends" and "means" because doing so divides impact into intended impact ("ends") and unintended impact ("collateral damage" of "means").

Instead of obfuscating the issue, let's just stick to predict as much as the total impact (including indirect) as possible.

For example, a society or individual is said to prefer having affirmative action to not having it when they or s/he believes that the predicted cost of not having it exceeds the predicted cost of having it.

If a person prefers having affirmative action to not having it, it tautologically means that:

(total expected cost of not having it) > (total expected cost of having it)

If said person does not bring any personal expected costs into the equation (it will be easier/harder for me to get into college, making decisions based on race offends my sensibilities), the inequality simplifies to:

(total expected social cost of not having it) > (total expected social cost of having it)

Expected social cost includes direct social cost and expected indirect social cost., which is difficult to predict. For example, it is difficult--but far from impossible!--to show that racial profiling has a higher expected indirect social cost than affirmative action. (Proponents of racial profiling rarely believe that the expected indirect social cost is small, but instead seem to prefer this cost to the expected cost of not having it.) Expected indirect social cost includes the cost of a "slippery slope" outcome multiplied by it's probability.

This is tautological (it doesn't say anything) and hardly controversial, because I did not attempt to aggregate positive and negative preferences and instead left the terms algebraically uncombined and observed the sign of the inequality. The controversy comes later, when people disagree about how to aggregate individual costs to get social costs (might involve emergence) and how to aggregate positive and negative preferences to predict/calculate the sign of the inequality--and come to conclusions with political implications.

~~~~

Alternately, "the ends don't justify the means" can be interpreted a principle that favors inaction when choosing whether or not to take an action when there are very high expected costs for both taking an action and not taking the action. This interpretation comes close to "first do no harm," the Hippocratic oath.

However, not everyone agrees to this principle, it is difficult to apply, because which choice counts as "action" and which choice counts as "inaction" can be unclear. Voting to instate affirmative action seems like "action," but so does voting to suspend it. Affirmative action can be considered always to be "inaction" because of pre-existing racism according to the moving sidewalk analogy--but the analogy requires us to show they sum to zero, which we cannot assert without calculating all the expected indirect social costs.

In other words, using this principle has a large burden of proof--it is difficult to prove that we can use it, and even if we can, the principle itself is not universal.

This principle is probably a straw man, but it is widely used as a (possibly inborn) heuristic shortcut.

~~~~

Also alternately, "the ends justify the means" seems to be interpreted as a principle that favors the choice with the least deterministic cost, which is usually not taking action. If this is a psychological phenomenon, then we need to overweight deterministic costs to accurately portray preferences.

This principle is used as a heuristic explaining absolute torture ban in the ticking time bomb scenario. The expected cost of torture is high and deterministic (violation of human rights), whereas the expected cost of not torturing is higher and probabilistic (massive loss of life).

We can either agree that the social cost of deterministically violating human rights is very high, or we could "open the parentheses" (to borrow an algebraic term) and decompose it into probabilistic social costs, including various slippery slope situations weighted by probability.

"The ends justify the means" could also be interpreted as a heuristic principle that we tend to favor choices with the least amount of indirect social cost which is difficult to calculate. This favors protecting human rights and social equity.

Of course, the impact of current policy in each formulation of the ticking time bomb scenario must be weighted by the probability that such a scenarios will occur. For many of them, the probability is essentially zero. We can hypothetically consider what would happen in such a scenario, but it will have no bearing on policy not in that hypothetical situation (ie, policy in the here and now); the world in this hypothetical scenario might have different properties (ie, if we quantize rights, etc) than the real world, because deriving properties in this hypothetical world from our world involves the analog of division by zero.

This principle is also probably a straw man, but it is widely used as a (possibly inborn) heuristic.

Quantification

2010-01-16T11:15:00.003-05:00

In Economics we can quantify things as long as we remember what we quantified.

There are no "real" values, in that there is no "real" value that we can use mechanically in all instances, only values that we can use in instances where the thing we quantified makes sense. Note, "make sense" means logical, and does not necessarily mean intuitive.

That does not imply that economic values are "meaningless" (as in devoid of meaning), only that economic values might be used to come to inappropriate conclusions.

An appropriate conclusion would be "if you walk forward 10 inches and backward 2 feet then we must have moved forward because 10-2 is a positive number."

ASL

2010-01-09T21:38:00.002-05:00

Signed English is like Pinyin in that:

Pinyin was created by Chinese to represent Chinese in English-derived symbology.

Signed English was created by English speakers to represent English in ASL-derived symbology.

Re: What Myth

2009-12-29T02:22:00.003-05:00

"WHAT myth?" posted January 31, 2006 by H.P.

I'm not sure how this man gets away with implying that he is debunking a myth. Contrary to statements in the book, psychologists have told us for DECADES (largely to Mr. Ellis' own influence) that it ISN'T true that our worth as human beings is related to our accomplishments in life. Dr. Ellis, you can't debunk something that has already been debunked, so just stop it! Perhaps if you had published this book about 30 years earlier, it could have been called debunking, but certainly not now. I think the main reason he did what he did is that he needed an eye-catching title.

In spite of the fact that ideas of unconditional self-acceptance have permeated our culture, it doesn't seem to be doing us much good, and so now we have a tidal wave going in the reverse direction. People are beginning to see the illogic in it.

Notice that there are many psychologists who tell us that we are o.k. just who we are, while at the same time they are endlessly striving for bigger, more influential roles in society. They are intelligent, witty, and insightful, make good money, wear nice clothes and dine in classy restaurants. I am not necessarily calling it hypocrisy, but I WOULD call it denial. The next time your psychologist tells you that you are worthy of love and friendship, ask him or her ,"Oh, really? Do you love me? How about dinner and a movie tomorrow night?" or "Great. My other friends and I are getting together for the game tomorrow night. My apartment is tiny and in a bad part of town, but we would like it very much if you would come. Can you make it?" Without a long list of accomplishments, maybe you can learn to like or even admire yourself, but your psychologist certainly doesn't have to.

I am not saying that thoughts of unconditional self-acceptance cannot help sustain us during the more difficult times of our lives, but I don't think that this way can sustain us forever. Man cannot live on bread alone.

Some people do appear to like themselves, even when their list of accomplishments is quite small - unless you would call social skills an accomplishment. Being able to relate well to people is an ability that not all of us have, and those of us who do have it seem to weather the storms better than those who don't.

I think that Dr. Ellis' ideas have some value, but I am not sure how much. From all appearances, his ideas have helped some people, although I think most of those who were "helped" were those whose lives were fairly normal and who just needed some help getting over the humps. The author can talk a good game, but for me it just doesn't hold water. You can try to change human nature, but it usually doesn't work.

Your description of "USA" is not actually Ellis' USA, it's Ellis' self esteem.

You're right, psychologists have been trying for decades to build up people's unconditional self esteem--"you're a great person, you're perfect just the way you are, you are well loved and respected, you should like and feel proud of yourself"

Ellis is NOT one of them.
USA has hardly permeated American culture.

1. The point of USA is NOT to take self esteem and make it "unconditional." The point is to do away with the mindset of self esteem entirely.

Your examples of "admiring yourself" or "liking yourself" is hardly doing away with the mindset of self esteem. You can admire and like things that you have done, and you can disapprove of and dislike things that you have done, and the point is that it has nothing to do with self worth (probably because self worth doesn't exist).

2. The point of USA is that it does not matter whether your psychologist admires you, (again) it need not generalize into some misguided concept of self worth.

3. You can prefer to "make good money," have a "more influential role in society" without it having anything to do with self worth. Is self worth the only thing that motivates most people? I might prefer to make good money because then I will be able to afford more comfortable living conditions.

Moreover, the data from studies shows for people being treated with REBT that USA usually results in people accomplishing more things that they wanted to, whereas emotional disturbance got in the way before USA.

right of identity

2009-12-24T13:14:00.004-05:00

1. people have a right to identify however they choose,
regardless of anything

most liberals do not agree with this right: identifying as black and any other race/ethnicity is not a universal right, but always a privilege of some.

=> psychological perspective:
identifying as a race that no one recognizes you to be is usually seen as indicative of psychological disturbance. tangential! (see post "right of illness") moreover, the connection between identity and disturbance is contingent on social norms (obviously). see any previous post on Daoism, Names.

2. people have a right to identify as any gender they choose,
moreover, this right does not depend upon biology

yes, research suggests that gender queerness has a biological basis,
but that is irrelevant, because the right to identify exists regardless

=> psychology perspective

Albert Ellis recommends the use of E-Prime, english without the verb to-be.
you can rephrase "I am Chinese-American" as "I identify as Chinese-American"

does the spirit of E-Prime ask that we also avoid "as," which introduces the appositive, constructions with which are semantically similar to those with the verb to-be?
does Albert Ellis recommend that we avoid identifying as anything?

we can rephrase "I identify as Chinese-American" as "I belong to the Chinese-American community"

therefore, it is not about denying a right, but factual accuracy:
it is false that I belong to the African-American community.

even if a community can reject you
(I opine they shouldn't, but I digress),
you still have a right to "identify" as you choose.
even if not a single person recognizes you're right to identify,
identity is internal and affected only if you allow it to be
(see: Eleanor Roosevelt).
this is a empirical discussion, not an ethical one.

in the final analysis,
identity is as tautological as self-worth.
neither are contingent, neither need exist or not exist.
you can define identity at will--
without necessitating implication.

a sociologist is unlikely to write those last three words.
a mathematician more likely.

right of illness

2009-12-24T13:12:00.004-05:00

most societies are observed to observe sickness behavior ethics.
leaving the field of sociology for now, i assert (opine) that the rights of the ill are not contingent on trying to get better, staying out of the way, etc.

- people have a right to be ill
- people have a right to be ill if they choose
- people have a right to be ill without discrimination

- illness (including psychological disturbance) is usually not a "choice"
- illness is usually not a rational choice
- illness is usually irrational

Forwarded to me: "Airport Security"

2009-12-22T02:11:00.003-05:00

Forwarded to me: "Airport Security"

Airport security was a sinch, I got this, I got it down pat.

Only a few minor slip-ups.
I was in the bathroom when the steward was handing out immigration cards to fill out.
No worries, I was banking on there being extras on the line at customs.

Agricultural objects?
I don't recall...

Money and purchases?
I bought a fortune in RMB, which ought to come out to $50 American or so...
Good thing I spent all of my kuai on tequila.

I get my checked-on luggage and walk towards the final checkpoint before freedom. The man there asks "what's in that bag," pointing to a suspicious cloth bag, you know, the type that Asian people use to carry fruits and other agricultural objects onto airplanes as a snack. Dammit, my great aunt should have used a square one, so I could say it was books.

I reply, "cookies?"

So I find myself going through agricultural security check.
The couple in front of me are Chinese, as well as the couple behind me, as well as every other person standing on line.
The frustrated TAA employee is yelling at the couple in front, pointing to the bags and gesturing toward her mouth, "food? is there food? food for eating?"
"They don't speak English, take them away" (uh-oh).

She gets to me, "Is there food in any of these bags?"
"Cookies in this one," holding up the cloth bag.
She is visibly relieved that I speak English.

"Are there any fruits or meats in the bag, sir?"
"Well, they're cookies."
"OK"

The scanners pick up only cookies, and I'm in the clear.

I neglected to mention that said cookies were fruit and meet cookies.

Just like I forgot to mention the $3000 American that some relative sowed into my shirt while I was sleeping. It's true that I have no idea how it go there, but it's difficult for one to claim the money isn't mine when it's physically attached to oneself. I wore two sweaters to cover up the rectangular bulge.

Sapir-Whorf

2009-09-23T02:02:00.002-04:00

I don't believe that language or lack of language limits thought. (Of course, Sapir-Whorf is more complex than that.)

Caution: This post is not revised. I got tired.

Perhaps this is because I solve problems intuitively. There might be a few steps of logic I can explain, but there is usually also a leap of intuition that cannot be explained except with "and then a miracle occurs." I know intuition involves the mind's background processes; I read that several (like 13) seconds prior to an insight, certain brain waves change, indicating processes we are not aware of.

I have a tendency to zone out. But I'd like to think that my mind isn't vacant, simply elsewhere. However, often times if someone asks me what I'm thinking, I honestly have no idea. I have even said to a friend, "if I'm staring off into space, I'm really not thinking of anything." Ideas and thoughts are sometimes words, sometimes images, and sometimes neither words nor images, but feelings. Are these "thoughts [that] can't be thought"? I'd like to think that even if I'm not "thinking senses" (like sound of words or image), there are processes going on I'm unaware of. Often times thoughts are feelings of a certain kind of connection (or analogy) between abstract concepts. I know ADDers tend to see connections other people don't see. Of course our culture considers seeing connections other people don't see to be insanity.

These feelings are not vague, they are very specific. They only become vague and iffy if I try to translate them into words. "Feelings" have a negative connotation in English, a connotation of iffiness and pseudo-science. "Intuition" is (only) slightly better, though has a connotation of femininity, weakness, irrationality, and hysterical fantasy ("figment of one's imagination"). I won't say whether feelings are real or illusion because the question itself is an illusion (definitely insane).

I will say that some feelings can be correct or incorrect, like sense of direction--when I find out my internal north was wrong, it feeling like the entire world just spun and I'm now in a different place, even though I know the lay of it.

The feeling I'm referring to is either:
-the inexplicable feeling you suddenly get which leads to the correct answer of a problem, the "and then a miracle occurs" step in a problem, which you must cross to get to the answer and you cannot explain without giving away the answer
-the perception of analogy between abstract concepts, which can be put into (inferior) words and understood by a handful of friends (usually ADDers or really bright friends). When I get ideas, they are often a complex feeling (not an emotion), which I will often then spend an hour or two translating into language and writing down, usually losing quite a bit in the process.
-the perception of relation and flavor of relation between words in language. perhaps because i'm not confined to thinking in words, i can think *about* words.
-an _uncommon_ immediate identification. it's a feeling because it's trivial or obvious (or perhaps arbitrary?). unless i'm lost, i can tell you where north is. i feel like i know "how," but i've rarely succeed in explaining the logic. most people know this immediate feeling, where someone asks you a question, and you inexplicably know the answer, my immediate, inexplicable answers are only considered strange because they're occur in different places. for example, if i ask you which of your hands is your left hand, most people would probably immediately know. if you ask "how do you know," the person would not know how to reply. i however don't have the intuitive knowledge of my right and left hand, instead i have to logically reason (i write with my right hand, etc), therefore i could answer "how do you know."

This could just be because of my ADA-recognized "disability." The process of the large jumps my mind makes ("distractions") are similar to that of the jumps of insight--inexplicable and intuitive, probably involving a lot of thinking underneath consciousness. Unlike the norm for ADD, I have pretty good spacial reasoning and sense of direction. Both are probably a step below intuition, because they involve images and not pure, abstract thought.

I apparently can also count without using numbers heard or numbers seen--often times when I'm counting out something, I'll get distracted and lose count, but then will still accurately count out 10, or 16 or whatever. I don't think this is in any way exceptional. Similar feelings about numbers themselves, if one's IQ is an additional 3 standard deviations above the norm, would be like Daniel Tammet's sense. I won't flatter myself to say that if I don't have the capacity for such feelings they surely are made up.
I also do not have Synesthesia. Instead, an occupational therapist might say I have some Sensory Integration problems.

Maybe Daoism isn't for everyone after all. It might make mind blowing sense to me, but it won't make sense to a person whose "great thought" actually *can* "be thought."
Maybe transcending the illusion is an impossible and worthless concept for people whose sensory illusion is actually flawless (though my 5-senses indeed raise a flawless illusion, dreams are always forgotten, hallucinations never happen except wavy grass/walls when sleep deprived). Maybe this fact is why every culture turns twists the prophet's words into stifling religion--the only words that normal, functioning people can understand.

I feel like I can see into things--see the way things are, or see the way all things seem to be part of a [something; not quite "movement," not quite "whole"]. How to prevent yourself from becoming a crank? Unfortunately, I can't seem to see the things that I'm supposed to see, such as the main point of an essay or reading. This could be a totally mundane learning retardation, just like the math concepts that math tutees can't understand because the concepts are too trivial to yield a pattern in the tutees' mind.

finding

2009-09-13T07:14:00.005-04:00

You gotta have faith that you'll figure things out. Not the meaning of anything, but something that works for you. Know you're gonna find it and hold on to it with your soul, Buddha be damned. There's a way.

Democracy and Progress

2009-09-06T07:48:00.003-04:00

Is democracy progressive or conservative? I posit that, for better or for worse, democratic systems have more inertia than other systems. I opine that democracy is still the best way to go at present. Maybe in the future consensus anarchy will be viable.

1) Democratic America lagged behind the enlightened monarchies in abolishing slavery.

2) Decentralized Islam, where any crank can issue fatwas (whether or not other Muslims believe them), is unimaginably more conservative than structured religions (Catholicism, Protestantism). Even the decentralized Buddhism and Hinduism are more conservative than people in the West are led to believe--popular East Asian religion is only progressive in the West. You might say Protestantism is more progressive and more decentralized than Catholicism. I say Protestantism necessitated a centralized Catholicism to define itself. The very word "Protestantism" betrays this fact.

3) Did the common person fare better under the rule of the early Roman senators or under the rule of the early Roman Kings? Any classical scholar can tell you that, except for the tussle over the last king, the common Roman was much better off under the rule of a King. Senators were democratically elected (well, the best democracy the world had to offer at that time), but these rich folk worked hard to further decrease the Roman Gini coefficient.

Psychopathy, Righteousness, and Deserts

2009-09-05T12:18:00.006-04:00

Psychopathy rests on righteousness.

That is to say, one cannot be a (primary) psychopath unless one feels supremely righteous. Today I watched The Shawshank Redemption. In the movie, the warden kills the witness that proves Andy's (Tim Robbins) innocence because a single retrial would shake his unwavering righteous belief that every inmate deserves punishment.

"Well?"
"Nothing."
"That's right, because you know deep down you deserved to be punished, don't you, Mr Potter?"

My opinion is psychopaths must be incarcerated (not as punishment but as quarantine of "viruses unrepairable") until spontaneous remission at middle age (if ever) in lieu of therapy, which only gives them better tools to exploit people. Everyone else should be given therapy in lieu of incarceration, is hardly be correctional.

Instead of encouraging psychopathy, the religious figures of history should have used their power to prevent it. God could have said: "none deserve punishment / punishment is a deterrent and not a means of (victim's, perceived victim's) gratification / a deterrent that doesn't deter is unreasonable."

See: "Failsafe" - Religion is humanity's oncogene

How To: Sync iTunes library and folder

2009-08-24T17:19:00.006-04:00

This one's really obvious. I have an iTunes folder that's larger than my iTunes library in GB, which means tracks are in the folder but not in my library.

Solution: drag your iTunes folder into iTunes. It will take a few minutes, but in the end only the unadded tracks will be added. You don't need to change any settings beforehand or add a script. To save time, you can disable automatic album artwork lookup.

Note: When comparing your iTunes folder size and iTunes library size, remember to take into consideration your music as well as your audiobooks, TV shows, and movies.

See also: Doug's iTunes scripts for identifying and eliminating (or other action) orphans, or tracks (appears with an "!" in your library) where the actual file was deleted, but not removed from your library.

~~~~

How to make an playlist of "unchecked"songs in iTunes:

Make a 1st smart playlist of all your songs (many ways to do this, ie, "rating between 0 and 5"), check the "only include checked songs" box
Make a 2nd smart playlist of all the songs not in the first playlist (rule: playlist => not in => 1st smart playlist), DO NOT check the "only include checked songs" box

How to delete all the songs in a playlist from your library

If you want to keep a copy, back up songs first (ie, select all in playlist, then drag into a folder in the finder, ie, an external hard drive)
Select all songs in that playlist (command + a)
Select info (command + i)
Change the genre to something no other song in your library is (ie, "delete")
Press Enter
Wait until action is completed
Go to your library
Select Browse
Select the above genre (ie, "delete")
Select all songs (command + a)
Delete (command + delete)
Press OK
Press remove songs from iTunes folder to trash

Update: Five Minutes Ago

2009-08-22T00:50:00.003-04:00

See: http://asmalldarklight.blogspot.com/2009/04/five-minutes-ago.html

Update on this theoretical Neo-Hindu Sect.
The paradigm is consistent with Economics in making decisions at the margin.
I'm starting to see the triviality.

Wisdom
爷爷：Two against the world is better than one.
奶奶：Two is as cheap to feed as one.

Everything From School

2009-08-21T23:45:00.006-04:00

Throwing out all the paper from the school has always been hard. When I finally do throw everything out (perhaps years later), it is usually like a sigh of relief. But throwing out everything I will never look at again from Chinese School is making me sad.

Why did I keep everything from school, when every classmate I have ever known (except my one friend who was similarly diagnosed with ADHD in his 20s) had no qualms whatsoever throwing everything away?

Every project, every homework, I put unfathomable amounts of care and love into.¹ Somehow I was never able to divorce the things I create from my being, never able to prevent my soul from getting caught up in my creations. I knew it was not correct, not Buddhist. This was the only way I knew how to create things, to pull out a bit of myself. My friends never seemed to care at all. An assignment was just an assignment: they did it, they got the grade, they threw it out. I knew this was what I was supposed to do, but somehow I was defective. I knew I had relatives with seemingly similar "collecting" habits, so I assumed it was a genetic flaw. Eventually I figured out how to do homework impersonally. Papers and projects not yet.

Perhaps I feared that if I threw my homework and notes away, I would have nothing to remind me that years of unfathomable effort and care was real and not a figment of my imagination (as it must have appeared to everyone else). When my friends raised a "A" effort, they got an "A" grade. My unfathomable efforts hardly amounted to anything. Often it would take 50 pages of perparation to produce an 8 page B- paper. Throwing those 50 pages away might mean I would have trouble believing that I ever put the effort in writing them in the first place. A single letter on a sheet of paper never seemed to capture a tenth of anything. All the dignity I had invested was still contained in those worthless sheets of paper no one else would ever see--you can see how it was hard to throw so much dignity into the trash can.

And when I got into college regardless (as admissions involves more than adding letters to numbers), my friends all thought it was unfair and got angry with me, as I had never put in any effort, had never tried, but was always getting far more than I deserved. I believed this. For as long as I can remember, my constant, primary emotion has been overwhelming gratitude--gratitude strong enough to make you cry--and an utter lack of sense of entitlement (worth?). It became a philosophy.

So I'm looking at pages of handwritten characters (including handwritten copies of all the texts), and hoping that even without the physical manifestation of my care, even with only four C minuses to look at from now on, I will still remember well enough to ignore people's assumptions. Developing self-concept is hard. I am very accustomed to believing what other people tell me about myself--as long as it isn't praise (or at least backhanded praise).

====>¹I feel uncomfortable writing that because I know hardly anyone could understand. And I have been accustomed since a child not to feel like "no one understands me." Instead I accepted the conclusions everyone seemed to agree on about me: bright but not disciplined (lazy), perfectionist, cares too much about "learning" at the expense of getting the grade, no sense of responsibility.

Dave Matthews' Insight

2009-08-21T21:53:00.004-04:00

To deny one group the right to marry threatens the institution of marriage more than it does anything else¹

Indeed, this exactly articulates the reason radically progressive scholars tend not to support marriage equality. Such scholars would rather let "defense of marriage" undermine the institution of marriage, because the institution is conservative and repressive in any form. Far more preferable would be an ultimate complete separation of church and state, with churches marrying whomever they believe they should, and the state civil unioning whoever (2 or more) wants to.

The usual response to such radical liberalism is usually "baby steps!" I am reminded of the "forward, backward bus theory" from my childhood: if one bus is marginally ahead of another, when it stops at the next bus stop, the 2nd bus will over take it. "Bus theory" refers to situations where "baby steps" cause a society instead to fall behind, either by using up progressive emotional capital or by some other mechanism.

There are many theories as to why Chinese society fell behind (ok ie, technologically) in the early modern period. Most involve some form of "bus theory." Perhaps China had much too spiritually advanced and philosophies (which taught there is nothing out there that you need as much as what's inside yourself, and that contact with barbarians can only lead to barbarianism or subjugation of others) blinded them from the killing to be made. Or perhaps, China was too politically advanced and no longer had Europe's luxury of one country picking up the slack whenever another country slowed its imperialism.

¹Dave Matthews; Janice Hughes, "Dave Matthews: HRC Partner in the Fight for Equality," Equality, Summer, 2009, 11.

Why Diagnose ADHD?

2009-08-21T20:58:00.002-04:00

Even before treatment, there are two benefits from diagnosing ADHD:

1. You can begin to mitigate, at least stop perpetuating, or even fully dissipate secondary symptoms of ADHD.

Armed with these four letters, you can begin to nullify the effects of the depressing and unhelpful words of others. But more importantly, you can begin to refrain from your own depressing and unhelpful words. Indeed, no one can cut you to the core like yourself. No one knows every last wound well enough to destroy every fiber of your sense of self like yourself. Hopefully it's just me.

2. You can ignore everyone's irrelevant advice in good conscience and go seek out the relevant (ie, ADHD self help books, ADHD study groups)

Lots of advice (usually aimed at increasing willpower) is relevant and effective for other people, but ineffective and sometimes counterproductive for people with ADHD. For example, "you have to learn to care about your responsibilities more," "you just have to learn to delay gratification," "tell yourself that you don't deserve sleep until you finish your work," etc...

Of these examples, the last is probably the most insidious, because sleep-deprivation is shown to exacerbate the symptoms of ADHD. And after a lifetime of "learning to care about your responsibilities" to the point of moral self-hatred for not meeting responsibilities, such advice can start a masochistic cycle of sleep-deprivation and attention-deficiency.

Data Manipulation

2009-08-21T20:55:00.004-04:00

Two most useful tools for quickly and precisely manipulating long lists of information:

1. Word's text <=> table function

If you want to add the same character to a long list of information, use Word's "text => table" function and delineate either where you want or by "paragraph" (each line is a cell). Then add empty columns as necessary. Then use "table => text" and delineate with the character you want to add. Said character will appear every row between columns (it will replace the column borders).

2. Find and replace

Self explanatory. One can get really creative by using "find and replace" and "text <=> table" function in conjunction with each other. Such creativity apparently might require defective (well, non-NT) thinking.

In other news, Forbes magazine recommends:

buying a house iff the rental price > 3% the selling price, otherwise a bond would be a better investment
moving assets to your children in bad economic times (so nominal terms and thus taxes are as low as possible)

In an even more irrelevant point of information, Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, not Monroe or Madison. Now I can continue professing Madison's special place in my heart, even if everyone seems to think he signed these four questionable Acts, one of which (Alien Enemies Act of 1798) is still in force as of 2009.

Heterogeneity Necessitates Standards

2009-08-21T17:39:00.015-04:00

Progressive educators usually disagree with the use of standards because standardization is dehumanizing. Please note the special meaning of the word "standards" in an education context:

Equality is sometimes misunderstood to mean equal. Therefore, as is the case in France, all students shall learn the exact same things at the exact same time regardless of individual strengths, weaknesses, and style.

However, this situation is not what educators mean by "standards" or "standardization." This situation is known instead as "equality," and equality is anything but dehumanizing. Dehumanizing standards typically refer to objective standards for measuring progress.

The following logical trick can reconcile support of "standardization" of people with opposition to "standards." Standards imply objectivity, which (heuristically) implies linear order. Making all people the same (equal) ensures a lack of objective order.

Indeed linear order necessitates objectivity, but objectivity is hardly sufficient for linear order! Didn't anyone think that perhaps people are by definition unorderable (Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar), a property that is secure enough to tolerate an objective standard here or there. In any case, people have (hopefully) many, many quantifiable dimensions, which taken as a whole is anything but quantifiable. Two dimensions is already not linear.

Libertarians (and self-help authors) tend to like those 2x2 logic boxes. Here are the four possibilities:

No standards and individuals,¹ Standards and individuals,²
No standards and equal students,³ Standards and equal students,⁴

1. Impossible, see fundamental theory of tracking
2. Traditionalism, tracking, the Kumon Method, etc
3. Progressivism, France, etc
4. Trivially impossible

The counter-intuitive fundamental theory of tracking is that heterogeneity necessitates standards (actually bi-conditional: the inverse is trivially true) or objective measures of progress. How can a student learn at their own pace without quantifying what that pace is? (see exception below) Contra-positively, rejection of standards necessitates homogeneity. Since we cannot measure the individual's pace, the individual must conform to the common pace.

The trivial exception is one-on-one tutoring, which heterogeneity and homogeneity are undefined and moot. In any case, it is difficult to tutor without teaching procedure, robbing the tutee of the opportunity to develop their own procedure. Even with the Socratic method, unless the tutor can anticipate a tutee's insights or the tutee can benefit from imprecise questioning, the tutor might steer the tutee away from those individualistic insights which the tutor him/herself cannot comprehend. To generalize the fundamentally theory: individualistic education necessitates standards, a brilliant tutor, or a brilliant tutee.

Individualized care is not possible without standards. Without standards, the doctor would have to aspire to (nonexistent) panacea, counselors would have to resort to (ineffective) all-purpose care, and teachers would have no recourse but all-purpose education.

Alternately, there is the razor of solution-oriented vs. procedure-oriented. Cue false "ends do not justify means" comparison: Solutions are objective, and thus marking solutions right or wrong objectifies and dehumanizes students. Solution-oriented thinking is also too capitalist and too Chinese. Thus, we can only mark procedures as "right" or "wrong." Individualistic procedures are wrong.

In all cases, it is far better to hold actions to an objective standard than to hold thoughts to an objective standard.

Quote: Pope John Paul II

2009-08-19T16:04:00.003-04:00

From Wikipedia "Social and political stances of Pope John Paul II"

In an address on 22 October 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Church's openness to the theory of evolution:^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour of the theory." (John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution)

====>4. ^ ^a ^b "Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences October 22, 1996". © 1997-2009 Catholic Information Network (CIN). October 24 1997. http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html. Retrieved 15 February 2009.
====>5. ^ Linder, Doug (13 April 2004). "The Vatican's View of Evolution: The Story of Two Popes". © 2005-2009 University Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html. Retrieved 15 February 2009.
====>6. ^ ^a ^b "Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man". © 1996-2009 National Centre for Science Education. 24 October 1996. http://ncseweb.org/media/voices/roman-catholic-church-1996. Retrieved 15 February 2009.
====>7. ^ ^a ^b Tagliabue, John (25 October 1996). "Pope Bolsters Church Support for Evolution". © 1996-2009 The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E3D81130F936A15753C1A960958260. Retrieved 15 February 2009.

New Blog

2009-08-19T10:39:00.002-04:00

New Chinese language Hangzhou School in China study abroad blog:
http://zaimingmingde.blogspot.com/

Quotes: "The New Rules"

2009-08-18T12:58:00.003-04:00

Chris Anderson, ed., "How to Behave: The New Rules for Highly Evolved Humans, A Scientific Approach to 21st-Century Predicaments," Wired 11.08 (San Francisco: Condé Nast Media Group, 2009), 82-97.

If your call drops, call back
Don't google-stalk before a first date
Texting is OK while in the company of others iff you're trying to include someone who isn't there
If you bought it, you can rip it
Provide Subjects for all emails
If you can't buy it online, feel free to bittorrent
Never broadcast your relationship status (ie, Facebook)
Don't lie with your facebook photo (ie, professional head shots)
Don't follow more people that follow you (ie, Twitter)
"Shuffle" is not a cocktail party playlist
Balance your media diet (ie, entertainment, news, social networking, microblogging, then gaming)
No more than 20 tweets in 24 hours
Online conversations are not all about you (ie, avoid sneaky self-aggrandizement)
Friend your boos, but not your boss's boss; follow them both on twitter
On Facebook, ignore your ex
Don't use a photo of your child as your profile picture
Don't send ecards
Don't talk on the phone in a public bathroom, text
Ditch the headset
Choose the right ringtone
Put on your costume at the con
Don't blog or tweet anything that has more than half a million hits
Delete unwanted posts from your facebook wall
Don't type BRB, just go and come back
Never BCC anyone
Meet online friends in the real world (Beware: it will be weird)
Leave your wi-fi open
Seek out your coworkers on facebook
Hunger and fatigue are not interesting status updates
The driver controls the iPod
Be mindful of your personal space (ie, screen, earbuds, cell yell, bag, odor, ringtone)
Break up privately before you break up in public
There's no such thing as too many friends (ie, facebook)
You can reinvent yourself online: Individuality, Authentifity, Commitment, Communication (ie, start a new blog)
Don't hesitate to haggle on craigslist
Never apologize for a lame tweet or blog post
Ignore Facebook polls
Never answer your cell during a movie even if it seems urgent
Don't work all the time, you'll live to regret it (in choosing work or life, think: what would I regret more in 5-10 years)
Never unfollow someone just because they unfollowed you
Wearing headphones means "do not disturb"
Sometimes you have to break the rules

From Grandma

2009-08-15T20:04:00.002-04:00

"All we need is morning. As long as there is sunrise, then there is the possibility that we can face all our misfortunes, celebrate all our blessings, and live all our endeavors as human beings."

Deng Ming-Dao, 365 Tao: Daily Meditations (1992)

2009-08-13T23:42:00.008-04:00

I used to think that if you exploit others' kindness or cause the people around you concern or sadness, that meant you were less than worthless to humanity. But that doesn't follow. The dignity of people is inviolable. Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar.

I used to think think the fact that people keep giving me magnanimity, forgiveness, and love, time after time, meant that they are so very good, and I am so very worthless. That does not follow. What follows is a demonstration of the deep and unwavering goodness of humanity.

You cannot find happiness by seeking it because finding happiness is actually finding yourself. You cannot buy something or go somewhere to find yourself. You can look inside yourself and begin to come to center, to come to one. What you need is already here, in friends, in family, in yourself. It's not about using, but coming to seeing. Come to see them, and you will find yourself.

We look at the same world, but we can only see our own illusions. Let go of what you don't need to find what you do. See through the world's illusions of resentment and smallness to see the world for what it is. See hidden, infinite magnanimity.

Before it can truly be about them, it first must be about you.
Before you can truly help others, you first must help yourself.
Before you can truly know others, you first must know thyself.

Compromise

2009-08-08T19:48:00.003-04:00

Rarely must one choose between two values, such as contentment and ambition.
True character is moderate. Warped values are irreconcilable.

Does one need drugs to know all is one?

Two Ends (Redux)

2009-08-04T12:17:00.009-04:00

In debate section, we debated the merits of the Chinese aphorism "知足者常乐" or "contentment is happiness." The Laozi version is 知足者富 (Laozi 33). This brought me back to a topic I thought about in early high school - the two contradictory ends of religion: (spiritual) liberation vs (material) enslavement.

I don't doubt that enlightenment is true. An enlightened slave will never raise a finger or thought to resist his master until the day he dies, because no master can touch his freedom. But an enlightened slave is still a slave. In China, men have successfully used "知足者常乐" to enslave women for 5,000 years. In India, the Aryans used religion to enslave other races for even longer, and to such an extent that an Indian reading this sentence would be offended. (See: Plato's Allegory)

Both make sense internally, even knowing that the other view exists, because they depend on differing values or ideals: happiness vs hope (East vs West?). But how can we symmetrically (super-rationally) resolve the paradox? In high school I couldn't.

Using Daoist tools, I tried to argue that enslavement by society was a degradation of spiritual freedom (Laozi 18), using the power of religion for material ends (Laozi 32). The Power is so vast, that even the tiniest drop could create utopia (distopia), even the tiniest drop could enslave millions. To use the Power of the enlightened thought is to degrade it. You can carve wood into something beautiful or useful, but every carving is still less than the original.

Now I have more tools. A biologist, bio-ethicist, or sociologist would say, question posed in the form "what should people do" are flawed, because even if an optimal strategy exists, there is non-trivial utility in diversity.

An economist on the other hand has no qualms telling The People to do one thing, and individual people in general to do another. The individual cannot overturn a slave society, and had best remain a slave and seek enlightenment (Nash). Super-rationally, the People can and had best free themselves (Pareto). Thus, from a Game Theoretic perspective, in spirituality there is potential for a prisoner's dilemma, a sub-Pareto Nash. (Note: I have given up rigorously differentiating between spirituality and religion)

This suggests enlightenment is selfish. Indeed western media sometimes portrays seeking enlightenment as selfish, albeit in petty ways. (See: Charmed 8.20) But maybe that's a good thing. We have too much of this Christian, Muslim, and Buddhist drive to help others see the light. Of course, there is utility in diversity. So if people want to be evangelical, let them. One hopes these religious memes are not so virulent as to cause the system to have a corner solution. If so, Game Theory says a sufficient disutility of future lack of diversity makes present intervention rational. Too bad the ends doesn't justify the means.

There's also the Serenity Prayer. Wisdom isn't as important as choice and resolution.

Renounce and Enjoy

2009-08-03T02:27:00.004-04:00

Today's UU sermon at CVUUS by visiting Rev. Allen Wells was "Renounce and Enjoy." The title refers to the Eastern belief that renouncing and enjoying go together, versus the Western belief that sacrifice is about suffering.

Services have use for simultaneous translation, during readings like To Live Content with Small Means #484 by William Henry Channing ("grace of age").

I am not Buddhist. Moreover, I study economics. Thus, a good deal of vocabulary was jarring. But the central message resonated with me almost completely. The one exception was the assertion of impending societal collapse. I say, "there is nothing new under the sun" Ecc 1:9 (NIV)

Rev. Wells said a friend defined Economics as the study of satisfying infinite want with finite resources. But that's the definition we learn in class! The Economic manifestation of the Buddhist fire of greed, fear, ignorance, and (ultimately) illusions is the Ponzi Scheme. Avoid.

Rev. Wells says that Buddhism teaches that we are not incomplete or need artificial completion by way of drug, society, material possession. Laozi says, let go of what makes you incomplete until you are whole. Both teachings say let go of pretensions of permanence and dissolve into ephemerality. Alternately, "you desire too little, why not desire it all"--cease the distinction of things. Little desire vs. big, little power vs. big power, conditional vs. unconditional.

My first adviser Carrie Reed's philosophy has many parts. One part is the 60s (or Huxley's Island) idea that you don't need to arrive anywhere, you are already here. One part is her father's insight while having a spinal tap: that denying or resisting the reality of the pain makes it only more real, because in doing so the mind wants, drawing a distinction between pain and not-pain. The distinction itself defines the pain and makes it real. Her father realized that if he yielded completely to pain, diving into a bubble of pain so that it enveloped every fiber of his being, his being dissolving into the oneness of pain, his soul no longer drew a distinction between pain and non-pain, and without definition or reality, pain ceased to exist. Reverse the process of duality and distinction, reverse the creation of the 10,000. At one is arriving at non-being. Atone.

See: The Matrix (1999). Carrie's philosophy lies at the intersection of tantric Hinduism, (early or very contemporary) Buddhism, and (philosophical) Daoism. Discordianism also openly discusses the relations between one, distinction, creation, and non-being (though perhaps inadequately). Carrie's philosophy of duality and creation fits into the mystical variants of every religion I have ever seen. Perhaps it's just human (or has to do with sex). Or perhaps the world makes complete and cohesive sense no matter what worldview (bias) we use.

Or perhaps the philosophy transcends. Definition, distinction, and creating reality are surely not specifically human or earthly--they are the nature of perceiving via the senses. Indeed, the 5 elements of Discordianism are Sweet, Boom, Pungent, Prickle, and Orange. In the pentagon (the five that contain one), arise reality and being (the illusion). In the apple of discord (the one that contains five), reality dissolves into non-being.

A Discordian might ask "is the Way a creative ordering or primordial chaos principle." This question cannot be answered (无!)--neither to say the first, the second, both, or neither. The great thought, the understanding of the oneness of all things, does not exist. If each order and way of 10,000 things were one, then we would "return to non-being" (道德经).

2009-08-02T05:35:00.003-04:00

The purpose of culture or society is to break sub-Pareto Nashes.
Middle-age (mortality) is the only known cure for psychopathy.

Me and You and Everyone We Know

2009-08-02T00:00:00.003-04:00

Me and You and Everyone We Know ★★★★★ (rare)

I liked every one of the characters. Each one reminded me of the eccentricities of everyone I know (and myself). I don't think the characterization was normative. Refreshing to watch!

This movie is one of the only interesting movies with no Western-style plot. Hard to do! I liked the ending.

The scenes appear to be constructed on the basis of breaking fundamental (not formal or obvious) social etiquette in various ways, especially discretion--speaking the truth when pleasantry is expected. I won't presume to say the movie was about internal conflict between what makes sense or is true and what is acceptable, between what we should do and what we do--which confusingly makes sense when we call attention to it.

Above all, the movie is not normative, except perhaps to say people are what they are. The movie causes you to realize that you and everyone you know has eccentricities that we otherwise forget about. They are often cute, usually funny, and sometimes disgusting. We are usually aware of them, and we learn very early on how to hide them and prevent ourselves from acting upon them ("cope").

I must confess that recent reflection on hiding eccentricity ("coping") by way of social epiphanies has biased my opinions. Watch the movie yourself.

Note: some parts are hard to watch, either because we recognize something in ourselves, or because something is taboo. No sexual scenes, little cursing, but still not recommended for conservative or Chinese audiences.

Six

2009-07-30T13:16:00.004-04:00

Central, large scope government is more libertarian: "the Emperor is far away."

Pursuit of Happyness is in line with Outliers. Meritocracy is not myth, but incomplete: possible, but not certain. Both ability and luck are necessary. Hardly insightful.

Problem: Loitering and solicitation
Solution: Play classical music, loudly

Problem: Stigmatization of poverty and solicitation
Solution: More Buddhism!

Hypothesis: The utility of diversity itself sometimes prevents corner solutions
Application: policy, funding, projects, research, admissions, medicine/psychiatry, agriculture

~~~~

Problem: Generational poverty
Solution: Abolish welfare and institute citizen's dividend
Mechanism: Eliminating game-theoretic Welfare trap (breaking equilibrium)
Likelihood: 0

People misunderstand Nash Equilibrium. The Welfare trap doesn't mean that a rational person will choose welfare, but that a rational person will choose to remain on welfare. There is insufficient (negative net) incentive to move away from equilibrium.

Equilibrium means fixed, not limiting or attracting. Poverty is certainly not limiting, though it may be attracting.

Make it a flat citizen's dividend for everyone, or at least make the cut off high enough (ie, include thrice the poverty rate) to prevent forming an effective disincentive to make more money--ie, above a certain income level, working a little harder yields much more money than the citizen's dividend lost (positive net incentive). Perhaps make it as easy as checking a box to direct dividend to psychiatry (name/address can be specified, or ask to be randomly, locally assigned).

Redistribute wealth lest path dependence prevent the optimal equilibrium from being limiting!
Redistribute wealth openly, simply, and without excuse!

Immigration

2009-07-30T12:54:00.006-04:00

Problem: Illegal immigration.
Solution: Legalize immigration.

Immigration control is a form of sequestering wealth or social equity. This is why wealthy/happy small European countries don't let anyone immigrate, and why they stay happy. Europeans of course attribute their good fortune to better theories, better government planning, better leaders, and better citizens.

Although freer immigration will take social equity from those that have, aggregate social equity is maximized by redistributing social equity more naturally and equitably.

This thought is a libertarian one. Socialism and liberalism question the notion of aggregating social equity, and thus question the morality of reducing one person's equity to increase another's (we cannot add changes in equity and conclude society is overall better off).

However, socialists and liberals only invoke this argument (social equity non-aggregatability) to argue against free-market policy, and not to argue against redistribution of wealth.

Ultimately immigration law is subject to political (game theoretic) forces. The (larger) beneficiary constituency of freer immigration neither is politically cohesive nor wields political power. The (smaller) constituency that bears the cost both is politically cohesive and wields polticial power. (A Law of Political Economics)

The Power of Dissention

2009-07-27T18:54:00.005-04:00

"When the confederates are not unanimous in their judgment, even if only 1 confederate voices a different opinion, participants are much more likely to resist the urge to conform than when the confederates all agree. This finding illuminates the power that even a small dissenting minority can have. Interestingly, this finding holds whether or not the dissenting confederate gives the correct answer. As long as the dissenting confederate gives an answer that is different from the majority, participants are more likely to give the correct answer."

I'm not sure, but with stakes so low, I probably would have conformed to avoid breaking unanimity. Sometimes you just can't bear to break harmony.

This is very relevant to Jury deliberation. (See: 12 Angry Men)

Stream of consciousness

2009-07-23T12:34:00.003-04:00

to save money, the school doesn't mow large swaths of lawn where people do not usually walk over (the "parks" as opposed to the "quads"). my friends think they look like neglect. i think they look like a sublime mountain meadow.

i can't explain what sublime means, or what it means to me. it has something to do with "astere" and is sometimes contrasted with "pleasant." for example, while mozart never allowed his music to exceed the pleasant, whereas beethoven sought the sublime.

(this word "exceed" in chinese, "guo," is what i actually mean, "exceed" as in "depart from" or "trasverse the boundary of." how confusing that sublime means "under the sill of a doorway" in latin.)

sublime can be pure like a mountain meadow--or purifying, as in the sublime washes over you burning all to ash, as in sublime, blinding morningtide burns away the fog of ignorance, confusion, and illusion, leaving only truth (or leaving nothing).

(that was pretentious. and that was "hanging a lantern.")

very few music can be sublime. sublimity usually requires the weight of incomprehension. beethoven can start with one melody, then throw another, then another, until sublime melodic incomprehension washes over you. i want music that leaves you jaw open and eyes unfocused. something either supremely beautiful or not beautiful at all. something either impenetrably complex, or unfathomably simple.

that is what sublime means to me.the sublime cannot be said to lie on one side or the other of the line of reason--cannot be defined into the 2 sides, 5 phases, or 32 divisions. it is "under the sill of a doorway" because it is too unfathomable to measure, too simple to understand.

歧视与博弈论

2009-07-22T18:10:00.002-04:00

今天我看了一片电影。
电影谈的是谈中国的爱滋病问题。
很多人是卖血赚一点钱得到的。

爱滋病歧视是个博弈论问题。
大家有歧视是个纳什均衡点。

父母死亡之后，他们的小孩儿没有家了。无论有没有病，这些小孩儿都会得到歧视。有人知道让自己的孩子跟那个小孩儿玩不会得到病，可是如果他们跟那个小孩儿有关系，一定会得到别人的歧视。因此，是个博弈论问题，是个纳什均衡点。没有人有原因换战略。

Review ^ 2: Outliers

2009-07-18T16:59:00.006-04:00

James Woudhuysen's review of Outliers reveals more about the author's prejudices than it does about Malcolm Gladwell's.

To Woudhuysen's credit, the review indeed betrays a sharp, bright mind. I agree with his suggestion that the observed statistical irrelevance of IQ past 120 and incorrelatability with success might be because IQ incompletely measures innate ability. Woudhuysen seems to forget that his suggestion doesn't actually undermine Gladwell's (albeit loose) thesis.

I agree with the standard critique of Outliers: the content is incohesive and often trivial. Gladwell attempts to utilize Dubner's "insightful episodes pointing to the same thought" method, but doesn't do it justice. His episodes should have been tighter, his thesis both tighter and less concrete.

The thesis is so loose and obvious, that there's almost nothing to argue against. Gladwell points to the ascendancy of culture, but also of serendipity (lucky choices and lucky environment: birthdate, birthyear, etc) and innate intelligence (perhaps a form of serendipity). Well, that doesn't leave much else to be ascendant. The only cohesion was a general attack on the myth of meritocracy and choice.

Woudhuysen's review is similarly incohesive.

Woudhuysen's accusation of Gladwell's cultural bias is ironic not only because Gladwell is a Westerner, but because the supremacy of culture was part of Gladwell's thesis. Hard work and patience are hardly popular in contemporary western educational theory. Had Gladwell said something along the lines of "But why then, if the Chinese grow up so good at arithmetic, was it the Greeks who invented algebra?" (whoa) then I would agree that he shows cultural bias. But it was Woudhuysen who said this, not Gladwell. Does my perceptiveness betray my cultural bias?

Nevertheless, Woudhuysen's comment plays into Gladwell's point about the importance of cultural background. Nevermind that the Arabs invented al-gebra. Whereas Chinese mathematics was invented out of necessity in order to build dams and the such, the serendipity of a slave society gave a class of ancient greeks a life devoid of work or worry. Math was a luxury, not a necessity. Indeed, I wouldn't be suprised if the Chinese culture of necessity (practicality) quashed the creative development of axiomic mathematics--if a student discovered axiomic math 2000 years ago in China, his teacher would in all likelihood tell him to stop being a worthless, useless daydreamer.

Two thoughts

2009-07-15T21:56:00.003-04:00

We will come to see that some part of physics rely on themselves for inevitability (like math does), others rely on the Anthropic principle. The line is somewhat arbitrary--for example, the existence of particles might one day be axiomatic like set theory, and one axiom might be Anthropic. The Anthropic principle is as real as the conditioning.

The Vermont dialect is unique, as far removed from SAE as Southern AE, and virtually unknown.

Common Sense Suggestion

2009-07-15T20:33:00.003-04:00

I wish cell phones would automatically silence all notifications for 1 hour after manually silencing a notification (ie, incoming ring) with the side button. If I silence a notification instead of turning the phone off, I'm in a situation where I can't reach into my pocket. If I silence a notification, I'm certainly not away from my phone (duh), and I certainly don't need additional notifications (ie, every 60 seconds that I missed a call).

Because R & D doesn't necessarily think of these things, it is very important for corporate product developers to listen to suggestions.

Shame

2009-07-14T20:37:00.001-04:00

Children with both a parent from a shame-based culture and a parent from a guilt-based culture might inherit both. Alternately, the shame response, a strong motivator in shame-based cultures, might be defective. Guilt-responses and shame-responses are both meant to correct and advance (ie, conform) the individual, but do so in contradicting ways; conflation can prove fatal.

Studies show, when authorities publicly humiliate someone in a shame-based culture (ie, China), the culturally conditioned response is to repair social harmony and over-perform. When authorities publicly humiliate someone in a guilt-based culture, the culturally conditioned response is become to repent and to statistically under-perform. Using public humiliating and expecting someone in a guilt-based culture to "get over" cultural conditioning is as logical as going to China and expecting a store to let you try on a sweater before buying just because you're American.

It's human nature to assume people that don't produce don't care. But production isn't correlated with caring. Production is correlated with production.

Choice Increasing WRT Utility

2009-07-14T20:34:00.003-04:00

Economics assumes that choice between A & B always yields at least as much utility as A or B alone. Is it true that having a single and a shared sink is necessarily as least as good as just having a single?--the reasoning is that if the shared sink yields negative utility, you can just lock the sink door. Sounds reasonable.

Six Thoughts

2009-07-12T14:28:00.014-04:00

The correlation between clinical depression and modernization might be due to better reporting.
The privileged and unafflicted have a frightening power to withhold empathy.
The Kumon method is based in the Socratic method.

What does the recent deluge of popular economic literature predicting the eclipse of China by Turkey, India, Poland betray? Popular writers write what people want to read. Is there fear of 中国和平发展? A national desire to see Indo-European cultures triumph? A desire to see democratic systems triumph?

I often mix up deluge and dearth.

The pen is mightier than the sword. Millions of deaths necessitated a single publication by Marx and Engels--94 Mil according to Le Livre noir du communisme (controversial), compared to National Socialism's 25 Mil.

Pencil Grip

2009-07-11T16:27:00.003-04:00

Pencil grip is path defendant.

Without intervention, a kid's final pencil grip is randomly determined by the first way he or she picks up a pencil, and not determined by their individual character.

Is pencil grip a profound or trivial expression of individuality?
Is individuality or legibility more important here?

Methods

2009-07-11T15:53:00.006-04:00

I received both a Kumon education ("traditionalist") and a progressive math education.

With my progressive math education:

the whole class progressed at the same pace (think France, a progressive place)
we were taught 1 method of solving problems, and punished if we used our own methods!*

With my Kumon education:

I progressed at my individual pace
I developed my own individual methods of solving math problems (Kumon doesn't tell students how to solve problems, but asks them to draw their own conclusions and figure out with own methods)

The progressive tradition emphasizes:

the means over the end, understanding concepts over producing results
equality

Both of these probably preferred and useful. However, when these values are applied, the result can be contrary to the original intent (but means over end, right?)

Means over end does not mean that it's better to stress the "correct method" of solving a math problem instead of stressing the correct answer (regardless of what individual method the student uses).* Tell me, if Bill can find the answer his own way and Ted can only do the procedure correctly, who is more likely to "understand the concept."
Equality does not mean everyone is the same (in ability, method, etc). That's conformity.

*You might think I'm exaggerating. In the vast majority of primary educational settings, the procedure is emphasized over the method to the extent that, if a arithmetic problem is answered on a test without borrowing-and-carrying notes written on top (presumably because the student uses a method other than borrowing-and-carrying) or with different notes written, no credit is given because "work was not shown." I don't think the reason is to force student to conform, I think the reason is because in teachers' experience, a lack of notes suggests cheating. Perhaps an argument for early tracking?

For example. Take the following problem:
=21
-=7
----

In America we subtract like so:
1 11
=21
-=7
----
=14

I however subtract like so:
==6
=21
-=7
----
=14

The 6 means that 7-1=6. And since 10-6=4, the one's place is 4.
Sounds alien? In America we don't subtract this way. For years I thought it was only me, but as it turns out, Northern Europe subtracts this way!

The logic is that this (21-7):
=21
-=7
----

Is the same as this (20+1-6-1):

=20=+ 1
=-6= - 1
--------
=14

龙生龙？

2009-07-08T05:38:00.003-04:00

「龙生龙，凤生凤，老鼠生儿会打洞」，或
「三十年河东，三十年河西」？

With time, all heritability tends to 0.

2009-06-09T00:49:00.004-04:00

Redistribute wealth lest path dependence prevent optimum allocation of resources.
Silence is golden
"不管白貓黑貓，逮住老鼠就是好貓" - 邓小平

Toki Pona: Imprecise Immersive Diagram

2009-06-04T12:58:00.010-04:00

Pattern 1

nimi o

a, ala, ike, jaki, mu, o, pakala, pona, toki

Pattern 2

nimi o

[taso] **** la

nimi en* nimi ⋯ en* nimi

li [kama, ken, wile] **** e nimi ⋯ e* nimi lon nimi ⋯ lon* nimi
⋮
li* [kama, ken, wile] **** e nimi ⋯ e* nimi lon nimi ⋯ lon* nimi

Key

****
= ante,
= ken,
= nimi en nimi ⋯ en nimi li [kama, ken, wile] **** e nimi ⋯ e nimi lon nimi ⋯ lon nimi⋮li [kama, ken, wile] **** e nimi ⋯ e nimi lon nimi ⋯ lon nimi

****
= nimi
= [kama, ken, wile] nasin ⋯ nasin
= [kama, ken, wile] pali nasin ⋯ nasin

nimi = ijo ⋯ ijo nasin ⋯ nasin pi
++++++ijo ⋯ ijo nasin ⋯ nasin pi
++++++⋮
++++++ijo ⋯ ijo nasin ⋯ nasin

Exceptions to pattern 2

- pi ijo
- pi ijo nasin
- lon e
- kama e
- mi li
- sina li
- [ijo, nasin] mi li
- [ijo, nasin] sina li

Alterations to pattern 2

* en, li, e, lon => anu ⋯ ?
nimi => sema ⋯ ?
nasin => pi nanpa tu ⋯ tu wan

Key (vocabulary)

lon = kepeken, lon, poka, sama, tan, tawa

ijo = akesi, ala, ali(ale), anpa, ante, ijo, ike, ilo, insa, jaki, jan, jo, kala, kalama, kama, kasi, ken, kili, kiwen, ko, kon, kule, kulupu, lape, lawa, len, lete, linja, lipu, luka, lupa, ma, mama, mani, meli, mi, mije, moku, moli, monsi, mun, musi, mute, nanpa, nasin, nena, nimi, noka, oko, olin, ona, pakala, pali, palisa, pana, pilin, pimeja, pini, pipi, poka, poki, pona, seli, selo, sewi, sijelo, sike, sina, sinpin, sitelen, sona, soweli, suli, suno, supa, suwi, tan, tawa, telo, tenpo, toki, tomo, tu, unpa, uta, utala, walo, wan, waso, wawa, weka, wile

nasin = ala, ali(ale), anpa, ante, awen, ijo, ike, insa, jaki, jan, jelo, kama, kin, kiwen, kon, kule, kulupu, kute, lape, laso, lawa, lete, lili, loje, lukin, mama, meli, mi, mije, moli, monsi, mun, musi, mute, nasa, ni, olin, ona, pali, pimeja, pini, poka, pona, sama, seli, sewi, sike, sin, sina, suli, suwi, taso, tawa, toki, tomo, tu, unpa, uta, walo, wan, wawa, weka, wile

pali = ante, awen, awen, ijo, ike, ike, jaki, jan, jo, kalama, kalama, kama, kama, ken, ken, kepeken, kule, kute, lawa, lete, lili, lon, lukin, lukin, moku, moli, moli, musi, musi, mute, nasa, olin, open, pakala, pakala, pali, pali, pana, pilin, pilin, pimeja, pini, pona, seli, sin, sitelen, sona, sona, suli, suwi, tawa, tawa, telo, toki, toki, tu, unpa, unpa, utala, wan, wawa, weka, wile

~~~~
Unanswered Questions
- is either "ante en ken la..." or "ante la ken la..." grammatical?
- can we consider the main predication (vocative-context-subject-verb-object-preposition) pattern to include vocative-interjection sentences (ie, making vocative-verb constructions ambiguously between interjection and command)
- can interjections be interspersed in a predication, or would they parse as other parts of speech?
- is "o" a separator or postpositional? (ie, is "mama o." a grammatical sentence? does "o..." imply postpositional because the vocative is implied?)
- is "o jan pali" defined? if so, is it a statement (probably) or command?
- is "sina sema?" grammatical, or must we use "sina pali e sema?"?
- can "anu" replace initial "li" and "e" to simplify formal syntax? maybe not for symmetry: obviously "anu" cannot replace initial prepositions.
- can "anu" be inserted between prepositional phrases. maybe not for symmetry: anu replaces words in all other contexts.
- how is "taso" used metalinguistically? inserted at the beginning of the sentence, does "taso" render "but..."?

Toki Pona Syntax

2009-06-03T20:24:00.006-04:00

I dislike the highly recursive wikipedia diagram. Here is another summary of syntax. For a complete summary of grammar with explaination and example, go to Bryant Knight's lessons

All 9 possible utterances in Toki Pona
Brackets mean optional
Asterick means pattern may be repeated
Patterns 2b, 4a, 4b are not included on wikipedia but seem necessary and grammatical

Let's define verbals as: verb + [adverb]*
Vocatives, subjects, and objects can be:
1. noun + [adjective]* + [pi noun adjective*]*
2. noun + [adjective]* + [anu noun adjective*]*

Interjection
1. [vocative o] + a, ala, ike, jaki, mu, o, pakala, pona, or toki

Statement
2. [vocative o] + subject [en subject]*… (one or any combination of the following)
+++++ li + [modal] + object + [preposition + object]*
+++++ li + [modal] + adjective + [preposition + object]*
+++++ li + [modal] + verbal + [e object]* + [preposition + object]*

Or question
3. Take a statement and replace every li except the one proceeding the subject (ie, the first unless elided) with anu to form an "or" question.

Yes/no question
4. [vocative o] + subject [en subject]*… (one or any combination of the following)
+++++ li + [modal] + object_x ala object_x + [preposition + object]*
+++++ li + [modal] + adjective_x ala adjective_x + [preposition + object]*
+++++ li + [modal] + verbal_x ala verbal_x + [e object]* + [preposition + object]*
+++++ li + [modal]_x ala [modal]_x + verbal + [e object]* + [preposition + object]*

Command
5. [vocative] + o + object + [preposition + object]*
6. [vocative] + o + adjective + [preposition + object]*
7. [vocative] + o + verbal + [e object] + [preposition + object]*
(Omit vocative and o for soft command)

Conditioning
8. [vocative o] + [taso] + Statement + la + Statement
9. [vocative o] + [taso] + noun + la + Statement
(example nouns: ken la = maybe; tempo...la = at time...,)

Exceptions
Omit li after unmodified subjects mi and sina (I, you)
Omit e after verbs lon and tawa (be at, go/come to)

~~~~

Clarification
o proceeds vocatives, which can imply commands; o used alone always implies commands
en can only connect multiple subjects
li separates the subject and predicate; can connect verb phrases
e separates the verb and object; can connect multiple objects
anu can only form "or" questions by connecting nouns or verb phrases, not logical statements
ala placed between the same word forms yes/no questions
taso…la… forms conditional statements; taso optional
pi (of) can connect nouns (the modiying noun must have an adjective attached to it) and can override left grouping of modifiers:
++++poki kasi kule = container plant color: "a colorful pot"
++++poki pi kasi kule = container of-( plant color: "a flower pot"

Unanswered questions
- "anu" forms questions (like 还是, or). can it also form statements (like 或者, or)? probably not: outside of logic, "conjuctive or" can be circumlocuted with either an "or" question or "and" construction
- can "seme" be a verb? ie, "sina seme" = "what are you doing?" or "what are you?"
- can commands include modals? ie, "Be able to recite this text!"
- can modals be connected? ie, "I want and am able to go."
- can vocatives proceed "la"? wikipedia implies it; I'm dubious
- can "seme" be a vocative? ie, "seme o" = "what should I call you?"
- are sentences that ask a wh-question(s) and a yes/no question allowed?
- can anu connect prepositions? ie, "are you at home or next to school?"
- can a noun, adjective, or preposition be repeated to form a yes/no question? surely there is a way to ask "are you good?" and "are you a person?" Toki Pona probably disallows differentiating the center of yes/no questions per above in other cases.
- how are comparisons circumlocuted (according to Bryant Knight, using two sentences with "mute" and "lili," "very" and "a little")
- can "li" connect predicates in questions and commands? Maybe questions.
- indirect speech?

In Lojban you are allowed to combine grammatical structures at will. In natural languages, combinations that are described by the grammatical machinery but not conventional and awkward are not allowed--ie, "oh what?" (doi ma?) to mean "what is your name" is allowed in Lojban but not English. Toki Pona probably disallows certain combinations of grammatical structures to preserve simplicity.

The Missionary Spirit

2009-06-02T22:53:00.007-04:00

My father was raised in a culture honoring the missionary spirit. My mother was not.

My father's culture finds it honorable and worthwhile to try and help people, even if you fail, and even if you know beforehand you will fail--what matters is having tried. In any case, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. My mom says: help people if you can help them. Why try and help someone if you know you can't help them? But why not help someone if you can? It's not about merit.

The missionary spirit has nothing to do with helping others. It has to do with internal spirit. It's about me, not you.

If asked, "should I give money to beggars?" remember the middle path. I wouldn't say you should always give money, nor would I say you should never; give money if you choose to and don't give money if you don't.

Yesterday I found myself giving beggars a lot of money, and I realized it was a feeble attempt to assuage my guilt for having sent a man to jail as a juror that morning. But that fact does nothing to make the charity any more or less charitable. Charity is just charity; I don't believe in merit.

Five Seconds Ago...

2009-06-02T18:50:00.004-04:00

Dad: "Would you marry someone more stupid than you?"
Mom: "I did!"

2009-06-01T18:25:00.002-04:00

The purpose of government is to prevent worse government.
Environmentalism is humanist.
Anarchists and revolutionaries are rarely the same.
Blood feuds don't necessitate religion.
People too often get angry when they're justified in doing so.

Denying the possibility of eugenics and disgenics implies their damage would be limited to the victims; the true damage extends to the entire human race. Biological diversity is the greatest protection from extinction.

presumption

2009-05-27T20:39:00.007-04:00

I. In America, a defendant has no burden of proof. So, silence cannot be evidence of guilt. Is this counter-intuitive? Consider: two students turn in the same paper. One accuses the other of cheating; the other stays silent. The west says the silent one is guilty: he or she must be hiding something. The east says 恶人先告状. The guilty one accuses first: he or she has nothing to lose.

II. Is body language a good way to evaluate evidence? A person with stage fright might tell the truth with great difficulty, while a pathological liar might lie with none. Better to give everyone equally the benefit of the doubt, until inconsistency or conflict.

III. If a survivor "had it coming" (made poor choices), does that make the antagonist any less guilty?--or does that make the antagonist more guilty, for taking advantage of a vulnerable person. "They had it coming" is hardly a defense.

How I would teach Latin

2009-05-27T19:16:00.007-04:00

50% Test* Median or Mean, whichever higher
25% Vocab Quiz Median or Mean, whichever higher
25% Classwork Completion (Attendance)
*Midterm and Final count twice

I. Final grades will use either the median or mean. Giving the option of median or mean allows different learning styles and strengths to benefit. A strong finish pulls the mean up. An occasional bombed test or missed quiz will not ruin the median. Both median and mean are considered fair statistical measurements.

II. Homework will be 30 minutes of vocab, 10-25 words. No translation or grammar homework other than to review class notes. The entire semester's vocab homework can be printed on the syllabus in advance and include all principle parts and macrons; dictionary practice isn't the point, knowing vocabulary is.

III. Daily quizzes will cover all 10-25 assigned words. Missed quizzes due to lateness or absence cannot be made up even with a valid excuse (except in the case of extended illness)--the median will not be skewed by a few "0s", for example, 25 "0s" and 26 "100s" will give a median of 100!

IV. Lateness (missing a quiz) results in a "0" for that day's quiz. Absences result in a "0" for that day's quiz and a "0" for that day's classwork--twice the penalty.

V. There is no HW grade because the quizzes account for that. There is no participation grade because quizzes also account for preparation and participation is mandatory (ie, go in a circle, or call randomly Chinese Department style, so as not to punish quiet students).

VI. Classwork will be done orally by each student in turn on the spot--either translating a line of text or doing an exercise/translation from the board. Students won't preview the text for homework, only preview the necessary vocabulary and review the grammar notes.

VII. If students consistently fail quizzes, directly ask students to spend 30 minutes on vocab a day, then if necessary send a 1-subject home to ask parents to ask them to study, perhaps together. Send a 1-subject home for attendance. If students consistently fail tests, suggest directly to them that they get a tutor, then follow up with a 1-subject if they don't.

VIII. Syllabus includes a list of common classroom phrases in language.

Peak Experience

2009-05-27T00:00:00.004-04:00

1. Clear goals
2. Concentrating and focusing, a high degree of concentration on a limited field of attention
3. A loss of the feeling of self-consciousness, the merging of action and awareness
4. Distorted sense of time, one's subjective experience of time is altered
5. Direct and immediate feedback
6. Balance between ability level and challenge
7. A sense of personal control over the situation or activity
8. The activity is intrinsically rewarding, so there is an effortlessness of action
9. People become absorbed in their activity, and focus of awareness is narrowed down to the activity itself, action awareness merging
Not all are needed for flow to be experienced.¹

When crew is done right, all 9 manifest,
a continuous flow moment, in every sense of the word

¹ "Flow (psychology)." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 22 May 2009, 23:49 UTC. 27 May 2009 ; Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, M. & K. Rathunde, J. E. Jacobs, ed., "The measurement of flow in everyday life: Towards a theory of emergent motivation," Nebraska symposium on motivation, Vol. 40: Developmental perspectives on motivation (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993) 60.

Neoteny

2009-05-26T23:53:00.004-04:00

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation between neoteny and mean intelligence (even if either can be measured) among ethnicities does not imply a genetic origin of the achievement gap. Equally plausible is that generational exposure to social support systems promotes (relatively quickly) neonaty. European immigrants to America have some cultural and personal (ie, family network) support. Asian immigrants have a lot. African "immigrants" have considerably less.

Review: Corrupted Science

2009-05-25T12:19:00.003-04:00

Grant, John. Corrupted Science. Surrey, UK: Facts, Figures & Fun, 2007.

writing style was increasingly chatty and shouldve been more professional and objective--ie, less commentary, avoid crank language, let the overwhealming body of evidence speak (mostly) for it's self
the increasingly obscure examples gave the impression of "cooking," even though his argument was sound
should have been half as long
should have been structured around transparent theses, instead of sprinkling them haphazardly--ie, "american culture encourages truthiness," the concept that all truth, including scientific truth, is open to debate and the democratic process
should have had footnote citations, and a lot of them
should have avoided irrelevant banter (ie, about the moral character of reagan)--though quite possibly true and relevant in a different book, don't serve to further his argument (only dilute), alienate readers, cause readers to question his impartiality, and lengthen the book
however, the book was a necessary and important publication: insightful, scary, and full of quotational gems

Opinion: Nature vs. Nurture

2009-05-25T11:57:00.004-04:00

1) potential is genetic
2) intelligence is too complex to be inexorably hereditary

children aren't clones;
genetic diversity is the point of sexual reproduction

talent arises anywhere;
strive to identify, encourage, and protect all types of talent in every region of the earth

3 Solutions

2009-05-22T20:24:00.006-04:00

If you want to stimulate the economy: invest $500 bil in infrastructure. Think Eisenhower but with high speed railways.

If you want to reduce CO2 emissions and dependance on foreign oil: at a slowly increasing rate, tax oil consumption and return the revenue to all Americans as a sort of citizen's dividend. This "Sky Trust" minimizes deadweight loss. If implemented at a great enough rate, it could also serve as a NIT, replacing welfare.

If you want to end Gerrymandering: for all districts, stipulate a minimum isoperimetric quotient. Of course, states may refuse to follow federal law.

These 3 solutions cannot come to pass without a president strong enough to resist politics and populism enough to do what's right. Easy is not politically easy. Politicians (liberals and conservatives alike) hate objective solutions--no bureaucracy means no patronage. Democracies often cannot attain that which benefits everyone overall (optimality) and no one minority group in particular--there is no special interest group and no political movement.* Only several years of depression, if anything, can break the market power.

*The last sentence recalls one of the 3 Laws of Political Economics, a psychological, sociological, meta-economic, and meta-sociological theory that I cannot find on the internet anymore. Wikipedia gives me arguments for/against protectionism, but no sociological explainations of why protectionism emerges.

five minutes ago

2009-04-14T21:54:00.004-04:00

七転八起
nana korobi ya oki
Fall down seven times, get up eight

Microeconomics is an application of Fermat's theorem
A rational person makes decisions at the margin

~~~~

what if you were created five minutes ago,
complete with a history and memories.
then remorse or self-satisfaction would be irrelevant;
all you can do is make the best of the what you were given.

our condition is no different.
a life, a game, an experiment--irrelevant.
information, clues, memories--irrelevant.
we cannot distinguish the reality above from the reality we assume.
in either case all we can do is make the best of the situation at hand.
this makes a good premise for a neo-hindu sect.

virtue ethics

2009-04-05T12:17:00.005-04:00

There are three main approaches to normative thinking: consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics.

I want to believe in consequentialism. I tell people that I don't care how good your intentions are, if you mess things up, than I will get angry. I tell people that I don't care how bad your intentions are, if you do a good deed, the deed is still good. I choose to believe in consequentialism, the most just and fair of the three.

But I don't believe in consequentialism. It is basic human nature to forgive the repentant, even if repentance is meaningless and useless. (How dare the Christians project a human nature on God.)

My normative instincts are a conflict between deontology and virtue ethics. I judge actions first based on inherent morality. If I like you, I will forgive you immediately no matter what you do. If I don't like you, I will be involuntarily annoyed at the slightest offense. This is unfair and unjust, but (because?) this is human. On the other hand, the human mind is also hardwired with deontology. Even if I am biased against you, much to my chagrin, if you are repentant, I will feel sorry for you.

I theorize that virtue ethics is a moral shortcut hardwired into the human mind. Judging the moral merits of every action is computationally taxing. Instead, the mind cheats and takes into account all previous moral judgements for a given person. The action at hand only carries a small weight to correct the pre-judgement. Perhaps virtue ethics is more than a processing shortcut, it is advantageous. Virtue ethics is more conducive to functional human society to be consistent. Friendships depend on pre-judgement; how could we have friends if we got as angry with them for small wrongs as we get with our enemies?

The law follows consequentialism. Human relations follow virtue ethics, whether or not we acknowledge it. Deontology lies in the middle. These are indicative statements, not normative ones.

the other side

2009-03-18T02:37:00.003-04:00

What Would You Do For 2 Seconds?

When you come to the wall of fire,
Will you ease up and say no?
And so stay at the cusp of agony.
Or will you sit up and say yes!
Push through the pain,
Be consumed by order and beauty,
And so find what person lies
on the other side of fear.

The Other Side

Pull yourself to the edge of the abyss
Peer into the depths of oblivion--
Behold! to find you did not perish,
But did break through the illusion
of pain and distinction
Leaving only the oneness of creation.

quotes

2009-03-18T02:07:00.011-04:00

some professors think "quotes" is not a word, because "to quote" is the verb and "a quotation" is the noun. but english has moved on.

the uselessness of the internet is no more evident than when it comes to quotes. quotes are always either inaccurately quoted, plain made up, or mis-attributed to Confucius. and even if they are correctly quoted and attributed, the source text is never mentioned. so before you print anything out and frame it on the wall, unless wikisource.org has a copy, you going to have to go to the library to look that shit up.

ive had enough of these "traditional native american saying" and "ancient chinese adages" (#3) that actually were said by Amelia Earhart (#10). for some reason it's considered ok to write, " 'blah blah blah...' -Ghandi" on something to be bought and sold, like a desk calendar. ok, so even if Ghandi said one of the 14 versions of a particular quote floating around the internet, i still have no idea when and in which speech or letter he said it. Confucius wrote quite a bit, so i want the book, chapter, and line, not to mention the translator and source anthology.

the internet is also useless for trying to find original chinese. i spent nearly an hour trying to find the original chinese for this quote:

"Inscribe in your heart / Every inch of the time at sunset."[1]

the following Harvey Milk quote exists in several versions on the internet, the following is the correct version:

"If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door."[2]

Another quote:

On the Statue of Liberty it says: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free..." In the Declaration of Independence it is written: "All men are created equal and they are endowed with certain inalienable rights..." and in our national anthem it says: "Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave o'er the Land of the Free."

For Mr. Briggs and Mrs. Bryant and Mr. Starr and all the bigots out there: That's what America is. No matter how hard you try, you cannot erase those words from the Declaration of Independence. No matter how hard you try, you cannot chip those words from off the base of the Statue of Liberty. And no matter how hard you cannot sing the "Star Spangled Banner" without those words.[3]

Footnotes:
>>>>[1] Cyril Birch, ed., Anthology of Chinese Literature: Vol. I (New York: Grove Press, 1965), 180; Ruanji, Yonghuaishi (Poems of My Heart), C. J. Chen & Michael Bulcock, trans.
>>>>[2] Randy Shilts, The Mayor of Castro Street: the Life & Times of Harvey Milk (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1982), 372; Harvey Milk, political will, Frank Robinson ver.
>>>>[3] Ibid, 371; Harvey Milk, "That's What America Is" speech, Gay Freedom Day Parade delivered, 1978-06-25.

if you fall

2009-03-16T00:58:00.003-04:00

Anita Bryant--
How terrible a thing
To fall on the wrong side of history.
So proud and righteous,
but leaving others to inherit only
the shameful burden of your name.

Civil Rights

2009-03-07T21:08:00.015-05:00

Today's amazing one woman performance of "A Colored Girl's College Tour" (which moved us to standing ovation) made me realize just how mutually exclusive the civil rights movement in America and Daoism are. In the former, you make noise. In the latter, well, you just don't try to change the world. And if you do, you do so by setting a better example, not by telling other people what to do. You improve the choir by being a truer voice yourself, not by telling anyone else how to sing. You save the planet by recycling or inventing a better solar cell, not by throwing moltov cocktails at logging employees.

Daoism and American civil rights style liberalism are so much at odds that Daoist statements would be censured in a modern context. For example, the following would be considered racist:

Minorities of every kind have been and still are discriminated against beyond belief. When your life's work is destroyed in an instant of inhumane cruelty, Chinese culture says bow your head, pick up the pieces, and try harder (Jesus much?). Look where the Chinese community is today. African-American culture says you will get nowhere if you do like the Chinese.

African-American culture might have a point. In any case, diversity is a virtue: we shouldn't god forbid all be Daoist, but more couldn't hurt. African-American leaders who disagree with the overarching cultural paradigms include Fredrick Douglass ("Once you learn to read, you will be forever free.") and Bill Cosby (stop being angry at the white man and teach your kid goddamn English).

Daoism is why I love the Economist, Wired magazine, and the 350 movement. Whereas I am informed politically by what my religion says, Christians are informed politically by what their religion is. Jesus may have said turn the other cheek and love (not "pray for" as sometimes incorrectly translated) your enemy, but the name and creed (Jesus died for your sins; gay marriage and abortion are sins) are more important than Jesus' message. Such religion is Myxozoa.

Which is more important, doing what Jesus said, or believing in him? Two Januaries ago I learned in UU Church that the early church believe in the former, but 1000 years ago they started to emphasis belief in Jesus in lieu of belief in Jesus' teachings.

Whereas the Environmental Justice movement says to make noise, march in rallies, get that legislation passed, an economist would say, a parade couldn't make the grain grow in Soviet Russia, a rally (alone) won't save the planet today. Without actual progress in green technology, all of our victories are hollow--you can prevent an old-tech incinerator from being built in your community, but you may have just doomed another community. A $100 laptop and free internet access may one day do more for the continent of Africa than 100 of years of politics. Be it engineering, economics, or whatever, the best way to save the world is to just keep doing what you're doing.

Check-in

2009-02-22T21:37:00.006-05:00

This evening after my turn during Check-in over dessert with the Unitarian group from Campus at Rev Johanna's house, Johanna suggested I get a blog. I replied that I have a blog, but the my posts are rather impersonal... perhaps because my Dad and Grandma read it. She replied that they can "deal with it." So here it is, a Check-in blogged for all to see.

This week has been amazing, with the crew season starting again. We psyche ourselves up for practice, and we stay psyched. Perhaps too psyched. Yesterday I'm sitting there enjoying breakfast, reflecting on my quiet and composed partying the night before when my friend comes over and all the sudden is like, "Whoa boy, last night you were totally belligerent." I felt disappointed in myself for a day or two, but now I feel like I don't have to be that way because I'm setting boundaries. For example, perhaps I won't play refined games like slap-the-bag anymore, or at least not twice in one night.

Ximena, my new councilor suggested I set boundaries. For example, I might hang out for two hours with friends on a Monday night, but I wouldn't then watch a movie for another two hours. Ximena is more forceful than my previous councilor, who is abroad. When I told her I had asked someone out on a date for the first time at Middlebury, she had absolutely no qualms telling me that it was a little odd not to set a specific time or place. So I afterward clarified the time and place, but the date fell through anyway--mostly because my date was taking a nap when I sent the text message.

I originally scheduled a meeting with my councilor at the suggestion of the health center. I went in because I had a sore throat and fatigue. The nurse told me it wasn't normal to have a sore throat for 4 weeks and drew blood for a mono test. Other than that, I had no symptoms at all, so she suggested in most diplomatic terms that the reason I slept through my classes the day before might be psychological. Last semester I figured out how to get to bed early enough to wake up for classes. Unfortunately, this semester I resolved to do my homework as well. I'm working it out.

The blood work came back sero-positive for mono, but also indicating I don't have it anymore. This is good because having mono means I can't do sports lest my spleen and my liver simultaneously explode. The blood work also came back negative for anemia. Too bad!--I was hoping for a medical excuse for why I'm so bad at crew. I'm working on a new theory involving too high a ratio of quick-twitch muscle fiber accounting for low endurance.

I recently catharticly purged my Facebook profile of pretentious material again. I guess I feel like I've been getting a little cocky lately. I've been feeling as if as a second semester sophomore, I've got it all figured out--we ain't freshmen no more. [At this point the 4 seniors at the dinner table scoff.] For example, last night I come back to my room and my friend says, "I'm not feeling so well"; I pull out a bucket from my closet--we got this, we got it figured out.

Over break I shopped at Costco and saved so much money. I bought two cases of v8 and a 250 pack of red solo cups before realizing it wouldn't fit under my seat on the bus back. So my dad recently drove through Middlebury and dropped off essentially a huge care package. I keep trying to get my friends to eat my chocolate--I tell them to stop being so selfish and take on some calories themselves. Papa also randomly dropped off a huge jar of pickles. I thought that was a bit odd until my friend came over, saw the pickles, and exclaimed, "Now we can do like the Russians!" I was enlightened.

never an educator

2009-01-23T13:36:00.002-05:00

i will never go into education [of other people's kids] because the expected social benefit is far outweighed by the associated costs in terms of effort, reputation risk, and mental anguish. i believe the problems in american education are systemic, not cosmetic, and are perpetuated by forces far greater than myself. one problem is the patronizing concept of placing "the child" at the center of education, when really we should be placing the *student* at the center of education. i will stick to educating my own kids and limiting possible harms inflicted upon them by the educational establishment. Toro Kumon got his priorities right--he invented his method with the primary (or sole) objective of educating his own kids; any other benefits to society were positive externalities. my externalities will be in the form of GFDL.

a post-walrasian thought

2008-08-22T12:52:00.002-04:00

maybe market inefficiencies themselves create stability by causing economic relations to condense as stable economic functions. this fits with the fact that inefficiencies empower government policy.

Drei Märchen

2008-08-13T13:07:00.000-04:00

Die Gute Tochter [2008-08-02]

Es war einmal eine gute Tochter. Die gute Mutter der guten Tochter liebte die gute Tochter sehr. Eines Tages wurde die Mutter sehr krank, aber nicht weil sie alt war. Die Mutter sagte zur Tochter: „Ich liebe dich sehr, aber ich bin fast tot." Die sagte zum Vater: „Heirate nie wieder." Der Vater sagte: „Natürlich." Dann starb die Mutter.

Bald heiratete der Vater eine böse Stiefmutter. Die Stiefmutter mochte die gute Tochter nicht. Als es ein Jahr keine Lebensmittel gab, sagte die Stiefmutter zum Vater: „es gibt keine Lebensmittel. Deine gute Tochter muss gehen." Der Vater sagte: „Aber ich liebe meine gute Tochter." Dann sagte die böse Stiefmutter: „Wenn du mir nicht gefällst, gibt es für dich keinen Spaß!"

Also ging die gute Tochter zur Universität Tübingen, weil der Vater reich war. Dort lernte sie Stefan kennen. Er sagte: „Hallo! Ich heiße Stefan. Und du?" Sie sagte: „Grüß dich. Ich heiße Die Gute Tochter. Du bist süß, was ist deine Telefonnummer?" "79 23 09. Gehen wir zusammen zu der Wirtschaftsvorlesung?" „Toll."

Aber der Wirtschaftsprofessor war ein böser Sozialist aus Frankreich. Also wollte der Professor die gute Tochter töten, weil die gute Tochter kapitalistisch war. Jeden Tag gab die gute Tochter ihren Professoren einen Apfel, weil sie so so gut war. Der böse Professor benutzte einen Apfel um einen Todesapfel mit Zauberkraft zu machen. Am Freitag sagte er zur guten Tochter: „Sie sind so so gut; essen wir einen Apfel zusammen."

Weil der Apfel schön und weiß war, hatte die gute Tochter ein bisschen Angst. Aber sie war ein gutes Mädchen und sie aß ihre Hälfte des Apfels. Der Professor sagte: „Hoffentlich esse ich die richtige Hälfte." Dann starb der Professor. Stefan sagte: „Ich denke, dass das bedeutet, dass wir jetzt keine Klasse haben. Gehen wir zu deinem Zimmer, zusammen?" Die gute Tochter sagte: „Toll."

Aschenputtel in der Schweiz

Es war einmal ein Mädchen Aschenputtel. Sie wohnte in Deutschland mit ihrer bösen Stiefmutter und bösen Stiefschwestern. Es begab sich, dass der Königssohn von Schweiz eine Tanzparty gab. Also fragte Aschenputtel ihre böse Stiefmutter: „Dürfte ich immer noch am Samstag mit in die Schweiz fahren?“ Die Stiefmutter sagte: „Nur wenn du den Tisch deckst, Geschirr spülst, abtrocknen, das Bad putzst, die Küche sauber machst, Staub wischst und die Wäsche wäschst.“

Die ganze Woche arbeitete Aschenputtel, ohne fertig zu arbeiten. Am Freitag ging sie hinaus zu dem Grabe der toten Mutter und fragte: „Was trüge ich, wenn ich eine Königstochter wäre?“ Ihre tote Mutter sagte: „Wenn du eine Königstochter wärst, trügst du dieses sehr sehr kleine Kleid, diesen rubinroten Stiefel, diesen weißen Hut und nicht mehr.“ Dann fragte sie: „Was sagte ich, wenn ich eine Königstochter wäre?“ Und ihre tote Mutter sagte: „Wenn du eine Königstochter wärst, sagtest du: ‚Möchten Sie mich fragen, ob ich tanzen möchte?’“

Endlich fragte sie: „Was machte ich, wenn ich eine Königstochter wäre?“ Und ihre tote Mutter sagte: „Wenn du eine Königstochter wärst, duschtest du dich, putztest du dir die Zähne, schminktest dich, kämmtest du dich und rasiertest du dir die Beine.“ Vier Stunden später besah ihre tote Mutter Aschenputtel, vergoss eine einzelne Träne und sagte: „Jetzt bist du fertig. Jetzt kannst du Fräulein Kongenialität heißen.“

Mit dem Kürbiswagen fuhr sie sehr schnell in die Schweiz. Natürlich tanzte der Königssohn von Schweiz am liebsten mit Fräulein Kongenialität, der Königstochter. Um fast zwölf Uhr (ihre Schlafenszeit) passierte es, dass der Königssohn zum Badezimmer gehen musste. Also steppte Aschenputtel ihre rubinroten Stiefel zusammen und dankte ihr: „Es gibt keinen Platz wie zu Hause, es gibt keinen Platz wie zu Hause.“ Bald hörte sie im Kopf ihre tote Mutter: „Bist du verrückt? Er ist reich. Es ist genau, was ich für dich wollte. Du wirst in der Schweiz bleiben!“ Als der Königssohn zurückkam, sagte sie: „Ich liebe dich.“ Der Königssohn sagte: „Ich mag dich auch.“

Rotkäppchen am Middlebury College

Es war einmal ein Mädchen, das Rotkäppchen heiß. Es wohnte in einem großen Schloss mit ihrer Stiefmutter, der bösen Königin. Diese Königin hatte natürlich einen wunderbaren Spiegel. Dieser Spiegel war der beste Freund der Königin. Seit vielen Jahren gab es kein Problem. Aber eines Tages sagte der Spiegel zu ihr: „Frau Königin, Ihr seid die Schönste hier, aber Rotkäppchen ist tausendmal schöner als Ihr.“ Zuerst brach sie ihn ab. Dann sagte sie: „Rotkäppchen wird getötet werden.“ Aber Vermont hatte keine Todesstrafe. Also verbannte sie Rotkäppchen, was gut genug war.

Also ging Rotkäppchen mit einem Obstkuchen zu Fuß zu Oma Alexandra. Sie brachte einen Obstkuchen, weil Oma Alexandra ihn sehr gern aß. Also durfte Rotkäppchen bei Oma Alexandra wohnen, wenn sie einen Obstkuchen brachte.

Oma wohnte an dem Middlebury College. Middlebury College war eine mythische Stadt auf einem Hügel. Die Stadt war offensichtlich ganz sicher. Das Problem war der Middlebury Wald, die viele Wölfe hat. Man musste durch den Wald gehen, um nach Middlebury College zu gehen. Und seit vierzig Jahre hatten kein Mann oder Frau lebendig aus Middlebury Wald zurückgekommen.

Aber Rotkäppchen wusste das nicht und lief und sang gern durch den Wald. Weil sie ein Hans Guck-in-die-Luft war, sah sie nicht den Wolf auf der Waldstraße. Deswegen liegen beide auf der Straße. Rotkäppchen sagte: „Entschuldigung“, aber der Wolf war schon gegangen. Weil sie nicht aus New York kam, fasste sie nicht ihre Tasche an.

Bald danach erkannte sie, dass sie ihre Schlüsselkarte nicht mehr hatte. Also ging sie zu Public Safety, um Hilfe zu finden. Da fand sie Offizierin Pascale und sie liefen zusammen zur Oma Alexandra, um ihre Tür aufzuschließen.

Als sie bei Oma ankamen, sahen sie den Wolf, der sich vorbereitete, um Oma zu essen. Aber der Wolf hatte Angst vor Pascals Aussprachezauberkraft. Pascale sagte: „Sprechen Sie mir nach: çççççççççççççç, ʀʀʀʀʀʀʀʀʀʀʀʀ.“ Und als der Wolf starb, aßen die drei Obstkuchen.

Aufsatz 3

2008-07-18T04:47:00.006-04:00

Bei Deutsche Welle gibt es einen Artikel über Blogs und deutsche Kultur. Meine deutsche Aktivität ist also, auf Deutsch einen Blogeintrag zu schreiben. Dieses ist sowohl ein Aufsatz als auch ein Blogeintrag.

Ich habe dieses Thema gemacht, weil ich schon einen Blog gehabt habe. Ich glaube, dass das Web 2.0 jetzt sehr wichtig ist. Deutsche Welle hat diesen Artikel am 13. Februar 2007 geschrieben. Jetzt ist viel von dem richtig.

Jeden Tag „nutze [ich] den unbegrenzten Speicherplatz" von Gmail. Alle meine Bookmarks liegen online bei Google-Bookmarks. Jeden Tag mache ich Dokumente mit dem browserbasierten Programm Google Text & Tabellen. Und jeden Tag gehe ich zu dem Online-Lexikon Wikipedia. Ich höre gern Podcasts wie „Langsam gesprochene Nachrichten." Alle meine Freunde können sofort meine Fotos sehen, wenn ich sie auf Facebook auflade.

Deutsche Welle hat gefragt, ob Web 2.0 eine Modeerscheinung oder eine Kulturrevolution ist. Klar ist Google keine Modeerscheinung. Aber ich lese nicht so oft per RSS-Feed andere Blogeinträge, weil ich keine Freizeit habe. Und wenn ich Freizeit habe, möchte ich eine Zeitung lesen oder fernsehen. Vielleicht ist RSS eine Modeerscheinung.

In diesem Eintrag muss ich auch über meine deutsche Aktivität schreiben. Also wird Alles kompliziert und reflexiv (sehen Sie mal: „Unendliche Absteigende Ketten"). Mein Problem, diesen Aufsatz zu schreiben, war, dass der Styleguide von Blogs und der Styleguide von Aufsätzen nicht gleich ist. Hier darf ich nicht immer nur Kleinschrift schreiben. Und hier darf ich nicht zu viele Hypertext-links oder Nebenbemerkungen (z.B. sehen Sie oben) haben.

Mein Vater und meine Oma lesen mein Blog. Ich will für sie schreiben und dieser Aufsatz ist ein Anfang. Ich bin auch ein Autor von MiddBlog. Vielleicht können wir auf vielen Sprachen Blogeinträge schreiben. Mit einem Blog kann man ohne Grenzen sprechen. In einer globalen Welt ist das jeden Tag wichtiger.

Quellen:
„Web 2.0 – Modeerscheinung oder Kulturrevolution?“ Deutsche Welle. 2007-02-13. [dw-world.de/dw/episode/0,2144,2325188,00.html] 2008-07 bekommen.
Sunderland, Matt. „Aufsatz 3.“ a small dark light. 2007-07-18. [asmalldarklight.blogspot.com/2008/07/aufsatz-3.html]

[Korrekturen: 2008-07-22, 2008-07-24]

oh, go to Éljúðnir

2008-06-22T23:47:00.004-04:00

1. only those slain gloriously in battle receive eternal life in Heaven (Valhalla). all other mortals go to Hell (Éljúðnir). how do i know norse is the one true religion? because it is the only religion the gods revealed to us in prophecy.

2. re: the incompatibility of religions
it takes great presumption and arrogance to assert two religions are not describing the same divine truth just because your feeble mortal mind cannot comprehend it. how do we know that reincarnation and heaven/hell are not two primitive mortal interpretations of a same divine process? stop insulting your god.

3. one of my most cherished belief is in the Hippocratic Oath--first do no harm. many Americans believe it is better to be firm in your convictions even if they are wrong, than to not have a firm conviction. i would rather not know the meaning of the universe, than believe a false one perpetrated by a religion.

4. there is an entire treatise here on why this person believes Christianity is the one true religion. i can boil his argument down for you, "because the other religions are wrong since they are not like Christianity." (ie, these religions are wrong because they don't have concepts of good and evil and don't make up a trite "meaning of life") why did he need several pages to say this? the funniest part was how he thought he was "disproving Hinduism" by essentially stating and agreeing with the fundamental Hindu beliefs; he just did not have the religious literacy to see that. note: his law of non-contradiction (the axiom of dichotomy) is one thing--a false dichotomy is another.

5. the atheist worldview is not "arbitrary"--the religious worldview is. the atheist's world is one inexorably ordered by rational laws (like gravity). the religious man's world appears random, chaotic, arbitrary. gravity might arbitrarily stop working one day because an emotional god felt like it.

6. the atheist worldview is not "devoid of awe and beauty"--on the contrary, the human mind could never dream up a more fantastic and beautiful world than the one we were given. compared to the true nature of things, the bible seems trivial, silly, and childish.

"there is grandeur in this view of life."

delineating love

2008-06-17T00:11:00.004-04:00

English is one of very few languages that does not natively delineate different types of love. ancient Greek on the other hand, is famous for employing a variety of words, such as érōs, philía, and agápē, as well as storgē, and thélēma.

such delineation of the word of love is usually considered by the learned to represent the superiority of languages like Greek over languages like English in terms of description and nuance.

however, the need to delineate love is an arbitrary, heteronormative one. there is no stark difference between passionate love and dispassionate love--they are different; that is true, but they do not flow from fundamentally different sources. all love flows from humanity's single capacity to bind one soul to another.

when people "confuse one type of love for another," they are not actually "confused"--for a moment they are catching a glimpse of the oneness beyond our mind's contrived order.

[edit 2008-08-11] English is also known for it's "weak" meaning of the words "Love" and "friend." Perhaps Barney is to blame? In any case, I think the rest of the world is just being stingy and pretentious in limiting their use of "friend" and "love."

festering thought theory

2008-06-16T23:51:00.005-04:00

there is a theory that if we ban hate-speech, people's hate will bubble up inside of them until it eventually explodes violently as hate-crime.

people seem to think that we are born with a certain quota of hate that must be continuously defused lest it build up. is this the case for any human emotion?

by never acting courageous, can we save up our courage within us to be unleashed in a great act of heroism in the future? by never loving anyone do we become ever more and more loving individuals?

the above theory can be thought of as a theory of negative feedback between actions, words, and thoughts. feedback is negative in this theory because actions, words, and thoughts add up to some fixed sum (inherited quota) or fixed rate (just like how linear sum functions have negative slopes).

i believe in positive feedback between actions, words, and thoughts. think positive/negative reinforcement and peer pressure. it is almost impossible to resist peer pressure without verbal rebellion/commiseration. broken window theory (which i also believe) is a corollary.

[edit 2008-07-18] in the chinese worldview, words have power and are liable to manifest as reality. in the modern american worldview, words ward off reality--the more hate we speak, the less hate we act upon. inversing the idiom--does speaking of the devil ward him off?