Monthy Archive: July 2005
« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »

If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr. No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).

If you want to know more about me, click here.

July 01, 2005

Thoughts : Skepticism vs. time

I was recently looking at the message boards for the new TV series "30 days" on FX (which, BTW, it quite good – I'll probably post on it later). This week's show was about a Christian (who didn't know a lot about Islam) living as a Muslim for 30 days. What I found quite depressing was the number of "christians" posting on the message board how the show misrepresented Islam, and then going on to make totally unfounded statements about what "Muslims believe". Things like Muslims worship the moon-god, or that the "Koran" teaches that Muslims who are friends with Christians should be killed (neither of which are true – just in case you didn't know that).

Obviously these are "facts" that these people heard from leaders (pastors, preachers, commentators, etc.) that they accepted without challenge and the decided to repeat to the world on a message board. Frankly, the experience left me depressed for the future – the truth is so fragile and lies are so easy to propagate.

It did however get me thinking. I know better because I am a skeptic and spend at least some energy double-checking things I hear to see if they are true. I also maintain that no-one is infallible and therefore not subject to skeptical inquiry. I recently double checked a story my pastor told in a sermon which didn't match what I thought was true. (As it turns out, we both were right – events he described happened much earlier than what I was thinking about).

On the other hand, with finite time, I can't check every fact I hear. There are many things I hear which I at least tentatively accept without verification simply because I don't have the time to check them all. The internet has made things easier – every version of a fact is accessible in moments. The problem then becomes trying to figure out which version of a fact is true. But that's better than having to spend hours finding information and then still having to decide who to believe when there is a conflict.

So, the question then becomes – what facts should a responsible skeptic spend the time to check, and which can they afford to let pass? My personal rules are: don't repeat facts you haven't checked, and don't base important decisions on facts you haven't checked.

Before I teach a lesson, reply to an email, post a blog, etc. I always make sure I am not including some fact that I haven't checked at some point. There has already been one blog post I trashed because I couldn't find enough supporting evidence for a key part of it (I still think it is true; but wasn't satisfied with my ability to prove it); and another I re-wrote because I discovered the story wasn't quite what I had been told at first. I'm sure I'll still make mistakes; but I do try.

Likewise, whenever I go to make an important decision (one that will cost significant money or which will have consequences for a significant amount of time), I ask myself – is there any part of this decision I am basing on something I heard; but never verified?

Still even with those standards, my mind must be filled with facts that I just accepted as-is. The times (thankfully infrequent) when I have corrected myself before teaching something is ample proof of that. If it is depressing to think about the number of falsehoods being blindly passed around the net; how much more depressing it is to think about the number of falsehoods still running around my own head.

Posted by Steven at 02:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

July 02, 2005

TV : 30 Days

Last year Morgan Spurlock released his documentary "Supersize Me" in which he ate nothing but MacDonald's food for 30 days while monitoring the effects it had on his health (I'll give you a hint – it wasn't good). The movie was excellent, exploring a multitude of issues related to America's fast food culture without resorting to "ambush journalism" as perfected by a certain other filmmaker.

"Supersize Me" was nominated for an academy award, but lost to a film by that other guy. However Spurlock's success did appear to get him the attention of folks at the FX network, and he's been given a chance to produce five, one hour documentaries as a series entitled "30 days". So far 3 episodes have aired (although FX is repeating them, so it may in fact be possible to see them all of them again by the end of the summer).

The idea of 30 Days is for people to spend 30 days walking in someone else's shoes. The first episode was Spurlock and his longsuffering fiancée Alex to live for 30 days on minimum wage in Columbus Ohio (an average American city). The episode showed (as opposed to talked about) the issues faced by the working poor. It was a wonderful piece of documentary art.

The second episode was about someone who went on an anti-aging regime promoted by certain doctors – taking steroids, human growth hormone, vitamins, etc. all to turn back the clock and make his body "younger". Frankly, I found this to be a weaker episode, although I think the side effects he experienced were enough to scare any guy off the program.

This week's episode was about a devout and active Christian who knew almost nothing about Islam living for 30 days as a Muslim man in Dearborn, MI. It was enlightening both in terms of what it showed about everyday Islam and also about how this guy dealt with his own faith while trying to respect the community he was temporarily a part of. It was all handled with a lot of respect for all parties.

Next week appears to be about another devout Christian who shares an apartment with a gay man for 30 days in San Francisco's Castro District (the heart of the local homosexual community.

If you like good documentaries, and want to have some idea how other people live, I strongly recommend the series.

Posted by Steven at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 03, 2005

Books : Freakonomics

Freakonomics : A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
by Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner

In 2003, Steven D. Levitt won the John Bates Clark Medal, acknowledging him as the most promising young economist of 2002-2003. This is impressive since by even his own admission, Levitt isn't a very good economist. After reading his book, what I'd say is that he is one of the world's greatest "data miners" – someone skilled at analyzing vast amounts of data to discover hidden correlations, patterns, and when he is lucky, correctly identifying cause and effect relationships.

In this task, his nemesis is "conventional wisdom" – those truths that people believe because they find them comforting to believe: ideas and relationships, which confirm how people would like the world to work. Unfortunately, conventional wisdom is often false. Steven D. Levitt has found himself in the role of the knight errant, slaying the dragons of conventional wisdom, and Stephen J. Dubner (a journalist for the New York Time Magazine) has become his Boswell, Watson to Levitt's Holmes.

The book Freakonomics is a collection of observations by Levitt (as documented by Dubner) on a variety of topics, only related by the means of their discovery (statistical analysis) and that most people would be surprised by the answers. This book is a must-read for anyone who considers themselves a skeptic as it presents a fresh and rational view of the world. Among the subjects discussed:

- Why, when daycare centers start charging a penalty for picking children up late, do the number of late pickups increase?
- How did Superman actually help defeat the Ku Klux Klan; and what does that have to do with Enron?
- Are real estate agents really motivated to get you the best price on your home?
- What do sumo wrestlers and public school teachers have in common?

And then there's the discovery which made Levitt famous (or perhaps infamous). From the 1960s through the last 1980's, juvenile crime was increasing rapidly. There were dire predictions of what would happen as this trend moved into the 1990's; but those predictions didn't come true. In fact around 1990, juvenile crime started to drop, and drop fast. Levitt analyzed a large number of potential causes, and found most of them (like gun control, and an improving economy) had no statistically detectable effect. A few (more police, more people being kept in prison) has some effect; but combined could only statistically account for about a quarter of the drop. So what caused the majority of the sudden drop in juvenile crime?

Levitt discovered something that had perfect correlation. The more of this thing there was in a state, the more crime dropped in proportion. The sooner it occurred in a state, the sooner crime started dropping. The answer – inexpensive legal abortions. The nationwide drop in juvenile crime started 16 years after Roe v. Wade. In each state, the drop in crime vs. the predicted pattern was proportional the increasing number of abortions in that state, including mirroring variations in abortion rates that occurred for various reasons. Those states that legalized abortions before Roe v. Wade saw their juvenile crime rate drop exactly the right number of years/months earlier.

Needless to say, this was a hot potato that no one wanted to be seen supporting. The moral an ethical issues raised by this are enormous. The theory is that unwanted children (for whatever reason they are unwanted) are the most likely to become juvenile offenders; and by eliminating a majority of unwanted children, the number of offenders dropped. Levitt himself recognizes that this is a rather unpleasant idea; but he stands by the facts of his analysis without supporting any particular application of the observation. The only "lesson" he personally takes away from it is simply: statistically speaking, women appear to be pretty good judges of whether they are in a position to raise a child effectively.

Posted by Steven at 03:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 04, 2005

Writing : Four Joyous Fourths

I wanted to write about some of the specific memories I had of happy 4th of July's (from childhood on), and this unexpectedly came out. Not my best work; but I do poetry so rarely these days, I am satisfied.

Four Joyous Fourths

Bright sparkles on a velvet sky
Booms echoing against the hill
Eyes open wide, head tilted high
Drinking in the moment of joy

Rainbow blossoms cover the night
Thunder rumbles with every flash
Family gathered, all is right
Celebrating the nation's joy

Concert ends, then fireworks starts
Canon booms yield to rocket blasts
Crowds of people enjoy the arts
Stolen kiss from my love, my joy

On the bluff watching many shows
Too far to hear, but many seen
Just married. What comes next? Who knows?
Questions fade, forgotten in joy.

Posted by Steven at 04:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

July 05, 2005

Life : UK 1994 Albums Posted

My SimCity and Book Reading therapy has done its good work, and I once again don't view working on my albums as a chore, but rather as a pleasure. On Monday I finished the remaining 110 captions, and the albums from my first trip to the UK are now posted for your viewing pleasure.

Since there are 250 pictures (selected from over 600) I have divided it into 2 albums, one for pictures taken in and around London, and a second album for picture takes in Southern England and Wales.

Now I need to deciede what album I want to work on next. All of the rest will be much shorter.

Posted by Steven at 03:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 07, 2005

Thoughts : London, 2005/07/07 08:51

What can you say on a day like this?

I've been thinking all day about what to blog on this. Most of it seems too obvious or too trite.

- Yes, it is a tragedy, and I grieve for the wounded and the families of all of the victims.
- No, this is not the work of true Muslims. Despite what many think, Islam is very strict about when violence can be used and against whom, and in no way was this act in accordance with those teachings.
- Yes, it is sad that there are people who can be fooled into thinking this is appropriate behavior; and yes, the people who talked them into it are evil.

England at least has a long history of dealing with terrorism on their own soil, and while they have grown complacent since the peace accords in Ireland, many people know how to handle such threats, and most of the infrastructure remains in place.

I guess the question becomes – what can be done about this? More specifically, can terrorism be prevented? And can terrorists be caught?

On the first question, I think the answer is "no." You may be able to catch more terrorists before they act than we do now (although do we really know how many are caught by various intelligence agencies?); but I do not believe you can stop a terrorist who wants desperately enough to inflict mayhem on a society. Consider America's own Eric Rudolph who, because of his twisted vision of Christianity, set bombs in abortion clinics and Atlanta's Olympic park. I do not think there was anything anyone could have done to have stopped Rudolph from planting his first bomb.

Some would say "make explosives harder to get"; but I believe that only provides false security. First, it is quite easy to make explosives out of fairly mundane chemicals. Remember, Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer and fuel oil, neither of which could practically be banned – at best the government has made it harder to buy large quantities, which merely means new terrorists need more patience. Second, someone who is planning on setting off a bomb is not worried about breaking the law, and when has a law ever actually made something unavailable to a society? Drugs are illegal; but are commonly available. Prohibition was a failure. Gang members have illegal guns and ammunition. No matter what you make illegal, a criminal will certainly find a way to get it.

On the question of "Can terrorists be caught?" – that likely depends on how much privacy and civil liberties you are willing to give up. If there were cameras and microphones in every room of every building. If people were required to carry LoJack style devices on them at all time (and there were sensors that detected people who did not have a device). If you were willing to let the government search any location at any time, then you could probably collect enough information that you could catch any terrorists after the fact. But would you really be willing to live like that? Note, I do not suggest that all of the precautions could prevent the terrorist from acting since the volume of data is too big to analyze.

I think at some level, the unfortunate truth is the terrorists are one of the prices we need to accept for living in a free society.

Posted by Steven at 06:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

July 09, 2005

Life : Modern Life and New Toys.

Technology and specifically computers are changing just about everything. I really started to notice when I switched to using a digital camera. I never had to worry about how long it took my old film camera to boot; and I never had to worry about downloading software updates for it either. In some respects photography has become more complex; but at the same time, the computers within my camera have taken over some of the more mundane aspects of taking pictures and allowed me to focus more on the creative aspects. That's a good thing.

Today Anne and I purchase a new car – a Toyota Prius, which is about a leading-edge in technology as you can get these days. I am discovering how much technology is going to change the process of driving, and (to be specific) how many new things I am going to need to get used to. Really – driving hasn't changed much since power steering and power breaks were invented. Electronic locks were a small change; but beyond that, driving a car today is about the same as it was driving a car back in the 70's. The Prius (and other cars like it which are reaching the market) are going to change that.

First, the Prius is a true hybrid car. There are other gas-electric cars out there that call themselves "hybrids"; but in fact they are electric cars that use a gas engine to charge the battery. The Prius on the other hand powers the drive train with both the electric motor and the gas engine, and uses computer algorithms to continuously manage how much power is pulled from each, including turning off the gas engine when it isn't needed.

Adjustment #1: been driving for a bit, stop at a red light, hear the engine turn off.
Old thought: the car stalled when I stopped.
New thought: The car has a full battery and doesn't need to use gas while it is stopped.

Adjustment #1-B: The light is long (and your battery was close to being low), while you are sitting at the light not moving, the gas engine suddenly starts.
Old thought: ????
New thought: The car decided it should top-off the battery.

It also uses the momentum of the car to recharge the batteries as you coast or put on the breaks.

Adjustment #2: it gets better mileage in the city than on the highway

The Prius also uses an RFID key that stays in your pocket. This is already deployed on some luxury cars; but for us normal people it is new. Basically, as long as the key is within 1 meter of the car, it will unlock itself for you when you try opening a door, or the trunk, or trying and starting it. Starting the car is a matter of pressing the "start" button while they key is still in your pocket (and wait about a second for the car to "boot").

Adjustment #3: I still find myself reaching to take the key when I leave the car.
There is actually a dummy-slot where you can put the key in the dashboard. I guess that's for people who can't adjust.

Of course, this is still our first day with the car. There are multitudes of features I haven't had a chance to try. For instance, most of the dashboard functions (climate control, radio, CD player, etc.) have voice controls. Press a button on the steering wheel and say "radio on", and it will turn the radio on. Say "70 degrees" and it will set the climate control to keep the interior temperature within 2 degrees of 70. It also has a GPS navigation system with voice feedback ("turn left in one quarter mile…").

I think this is a car I am actually going to have to read the owner's manual for.

Posted by Steven at 10:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

July 10, 2005

Books : On Intelligence

On Intelligence
by Jeff Hawkins, Sandra Blakeslee

I have previously commented on my fascination with the transition between fields of study: how does biology arise from chemistry? How does sociology arise from psychology? How does mind arise from brain?

On the last subject I appear to have good company: Jeff Hawkins – the inventor of the Palm Pilot and founder of Palm Computing and Handspring. Mobile computing is his "day job"; but his real passion (and what he appears to spend a lot of his "spare time" thinking about) is the question of how does the brain work.

He discovered (as I have) that while there is a lot of understanding of how individual neurons work, and there are theories of psychology which explain the overall behavior, there are virtually no attempts out there to postulate how the brain works as a system. The few theories that exists relate to specific areas of the brain (for instance, how vision is processed) and generally have enormous gaps that make them less than compelling.

Given that, what is amazing is that someone who might be considered a dilettante in some circles has actually produced a rather comprehensive and compelling theory. Hawkins' book "On Intelligence" presents his theory that intelligence, creativity, and even "the mind" arises from the brain acting as an "associative memory-prediction mechanism". That in essence the neurons in the brain are organized to detect hierarchies of patterns, with matched patterns feeding up the hierarchy into higher and higher levels of abstraction and predictions of what patterns should be found next/nearby feeding down the hierarchy. With a single, simple model he shows how "inputs" like vision and sight and "outputs" like muscle control are all the same thing.

This book is not just an abstract theory either. He explains in some detail the physical structure of the neo-cortex and how the different kinds of cells in the six layers of that structure interact to make this occur. Furthermore he presents eleven predictions based on his model which can be scientifically tested to determine if his theory is correct.

Based on my own consideration of these questions, I am reasonably convinced that he is essentially correct in his understanding of how the neo-cortex works. I like the way his model explains how we fill in missing information and how we can recognize something as "the same" even when the details of the stimulus are quite different (someone's face in front of you vs. a picture of the same face at an angle on the edge of your vision). I also like how he explains how "outputs" are driven by prediction - at a high level, "reaching for the door knob" predicts patterns at lower and lower levels so that at the lowest level it "predicts" the firing of neurons that actually contract muscles.

Whether that is in fact sufficient to explain intelligence and creativity is another matter which I will have to think about more. I think what he describes is probably a key part of how the brain works; but I am unsure if his model is as complete as he claims. Nonetheless, this is a book well worth reading.

Posted by Steven at 08:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 11, 2005

TV : Guns, Germs and Steel

Late notice; but starting tonight on PBS, there is a 3 part series based on Jared Diamond's controversial Pulitzer Prize-winning book "Guns, Germs and Steel". The book is an attempt to answer the question posed to Diamond by a Papua New Guinea villager: why is it that it is the Europeans who have come to New Guinea in their airplanes and culture and not the other way around? Diamond's answers are quite interesting, and probably not what you expect.

Posted by Steven at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

July 12, 2005

Thoughts : What is intelligence?

Is analogy the essence of intelligence and creativity? Is it the ability to deal with increasingly abstract forms of "A is like B" that makes something intelligent/creative? Jeff Hawkins (see previous post "On Intelligence") believes he has discovered the mechanics of intelligence in the brain in the form of what is essentially a hierarchical analogy engine.

The idea is the manifestation of Einstein's intelligence is that we was able to see that being pushed back in a chair when one accelerated was "like" gravity and then formed the model in which they were the same thing. Or that Robert Burns' creativity was the ability to see that his love was like a red, red rose and then wrote a poem to explain how. In each case the "working out of the details" can also be explained in terms of sets of analogies.

Certainly when I think about the times when I have felt particularly clever, it was either when I was able to spot some pattern (I see: A is like B is like C is like D…) or I realized that the problem I faced was similar to a problem I previous has solved (this is just like the time I…). Both are forms of analogy.

What is interesting about this formulation is that something could be very "intelligent" and fail a Turing Test (the standard test in computer science to determine if we have finally achieved "Artificial Intelligence"); and that there is no inherent requirement in the Turing Test to employ analogies (and therefore intelligence?), so something could pass the test and not actually be intelligent.

Posted by Steven at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Books : Epic

Epic : The Story God Is Telling and the Role That Is Yours to Play
by John Eldredge

A couple years back, I read the book The Cry for Myth by Rollo May (a noted Psychologist and Existential Philosopher). In it, May examines how people are drawn to myth and fictional stories as a means to understand the world around them, and how they invent stories when none of the existing ones seem to fit. May uses ancient myths, modern stories, and case studies of his patients to make his case that we are driven to understand ourselves as being part of a larger story.

Epic is a small book (only 104 under-sized pages – I read it in under 40 minutes) follows along a similar lines; but with a distinctly Christian flavor. Starting with Lord of the Rings, and using dozens of other stories – mostly movies like Star Wars, Titanic, Last of the Mohicans, The Matrix, Braveheart, Gladiator, etc. to say that we are all in fact characters in an epic story - a love story set amid a great battle between good and evil. He calls out parallels between the stories that become popular and the great story told in the Bible.

As a Christian who is also an unrepentant fan of popular culture, I found this to be an thoroughly enjoyable book – both in terms of its analysis of popular fiction, and the presentation of Christianity which I think draws nearer to the heart of the gospel than many sermons I have heard from the pulpit. Christianity is not about rules and threats – it is an love story which we are all invited to be a part of.

I consider his book is a must-read for any Christian who is a fan of modern fiction, and I would recommend it to non-Christians who are open to a new perspective on that faith.

Posted by Steven at 03:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

July 13, 2005

Observations : Rorschach by Newspaper

It is not unusual for places I work to have the local newspaper delivered; and at each office there has always been one section of the paper that was "in demand". Sometimes it has been the business section (often for technology news), others the front page, still others sports, and even in a couple of places the "hot" section of the paper were the comics pages. Clearly this choice said something about the nature of each team.

Which leads me to my current office where none of the above are particularly popular. The one section that gets all of the attention at my current office is the several pages of ads that appear in every edition for Fry's Electronics – the local electronics goods superstore chain. For those unfamiliar with Fry's, in addition to selling TVs, computers, and other more common "appliances", Fry's is the kind of store that has aisles for "power supplies", "cables", "resistors and capacitors", etc. For Americans - think of a Radio Shack if it was the size of Target.

"Fry's runs" are a common occurrence at lunch, either to purchase items we need around the office that happen to be on sale, or for employees to buy things for one of their various "home brew" projects at home. I'm one of the few people on the team who seems content to purchase "ready made" electronics good. Of course that kind of creativity is an asset for an engineering organization – I've just never seen it to this degree before.

Posted by Steven at 07:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 17, 2005

TV : TV Comes and TV Goes

The new season on the SciFi channel started Friday. Some quick takes:

Stargate SG-1
Changing of the guard – Richard dean Anderson is leaving the series, causing a shuffle of characters and roles, with Ben Browder and Claudia Black (who previously starred together on SciFi's Farscape) and Beau Bridges being added to the cast. The previous season ended with our heroes finally defeating the Gua'uld (the primary recurring villain of the series), so this is their chance to really start the whole series over while keeping the very rich mythology they have created. I'm going to watched the first 5-6 episode then make a call if they have brought new time to the series or not. I have to say, I love seeing Browder and Black together again, and the fact that they have essentially changed roles (this time he's the straight arrow military type and she's the wild one) is fun to watch.

Stargate Atlantis
Looks like more of the same here. While I love Stargate SG-1, Atlantis always seemed superfluous to me. Spin-off series work if they allow the writers to explore new ground; but I don't really see what new doors this series opened up for drama. I suspect this will get dropped off my list soon.

Battlestar Galactica
Wow. Let me say that again. Wow. This new "re-imagined" series is everything good science fiction is supposed to be. Complex characters, complex plots, mysteries, moral dilemmas. The new season doesn't take the easy path of putting every back together again after last season's finale, and continues to provide the characters with challenges.

On the flip side, word is that "The Inside" will not be continued, and that in fact not all of the filmed episodes will air. This is a dark cop drama that I still haven't made my mind up on. The characters are so complex, I'm still trying to form an opinion on the show. Well, there's always DVDs.

Posted by Steven at 07:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Books : The Watchmen

Watchmen (Paperback)
by Alan Moore (Author), Dave Gibbons (Artist)

In 1986/1987 Alan Moore created what is recognized as a masterpiece among "graphic novels" (high-end, comic book series created for adults instead of children). I however was not reading comic books at the time, so it passed me by.

A few years back, I started reading comics again when JMS (a TV writer whose work I enjoyed) started writing the Spiderman comics for Marvel and I was curious what he skills would produce in this different medium. I was pleased and surprised, and have since started reading a very limited number of "graphic novels" when I have time.

Now that I am paying attention to comics again (looking for those few I am willing to spend my time on), I've taken note of those titles people are still talking about 10-20 years after they were published, and "The Watchmen" is near the top of that list. I was finally able to borrow a copy from a friend and read it over the weekend.

The Watchmen disserves all of the praise it receives. It is an intelligent deconstruction of the American "comic book hero" myth. It tells the story of 2 generations of heroes (roughly matching the "golden age" and "silver age" of comics), and shows the complexity of their characters. A key subtext of the book is that in real life, anyone who would go around fighting crime in a costume has to be pretty mess up psychologically, and anyone who was born with "superpowers" would find it difficult to relate to the rest of humanity. Out of those conflicts comes a story that isn't pretty; but asks good questions about just what is "truth, justice, and the American way" as Superman used to say.

Not only are the characters and the story interesting; but Moore(and the artist, Dave Gibbons) manage to employ almost "cinematic" techniques in how they tell the story. Both the visual style and background action provide complexity to the presentation that I think many people would not expect.

By the way, the title comes from the roman aphorism: "Quis Custodiet ipsos Custodes?" – Who watches the watchmen, only mentioned in passing in the book; but serves as the foundation of the whole story

Posted by Steven at 09:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 23, 2005

Life : Churchill's black dog is chasing me again

I'm depressed.

Not the ruby-black despair that drives people to seek any way out of their non-feeling. Fortunately, the flaw in my brain chemistry does not allow things to go that far.

My experience of depression is that I lose interest in doing things, and lose pleasure in the remaining things I do. In the most extreme case (which I have only experienced a couple days out of my whole life), I can't motivate myself to do anything other than curl up in bed - not to sleep (I'm not tired) but simply because there is no activity which has the slightest appear to me.

This, thankfully, is not one of those times.

This week's depression is actually quite mild on the scale I have developed. What I have realized is that I lose interest in activities in a predictable order. I stop reading non-fiction before I stop reading fiction. I stop reading before I stop playing games. I stop playing games before I stop watching television. I have learned over the years (depression has been a factor in my life since I was in my teens) that just about every activity fits neatly into this spectrum, and that I can gauge the degree of my depression by what I am and am not motivated to do. It provides a convenient self-diagnostic tool.

I'm not completely certain what the key criteria is that orders things on this scale; but it clearly relates to the level of personal involvement. The more of myself I need to put into an activity, the less depressed I have to be before it goes away. Television, being almost entirely passive, is one of the last things to go. Bloging appears to be early on the list.

Oh, with regard to my current depression – I'm not concerned. This kind tends to pass after a few days, so I usually just take it as my body's way of saying I need to take a break. I have had more serious depressions, and am unashamed to say I got professional help (I don't care what Tom Cruise thinks); but this one is no cause of concern (unless you are waiting for my next blog entry).

Posted by Steven at 04:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 25, 2005

Books : Eastern Standard Tribe

Eastern Standard Tribe
by Cory Doctorow

Short review: "Tastes great, less filling"

This is the second of Cory's novels, and I very much like his "voice" – how he writes. It is entertaining and enjoyable. I will certainly read more of his books as I have an opportunity.

However, I found this book to be a bit short on "substance", and thinking back to "Down and out in the Magic Kingdom", it also was rather simple in its treatment. Each book had a few good ideas; but I come away feeling more like I had read a short story than a novel. The ideas are presented but are not explored in any real depth.

As to the ideas themselves: The basic concept of EST is that modern communication technology (internet, blackberry's, etc.) allow people to contact and form relationships with people they are not geographically near. The premise of the book is that we are starting to form "tribes" that bear no relationship to geography, and that our loyalty to our "tribe" will inevitably grow compared to our loyalty to other associations we may be a part of. The story is about an individual who gets into trouble because of his loyalty to his tribe.

As far as I have explained it, I agree with the premise. I have certainly formed tighter relationships with people I know over the net than with people in my local community, and I could imagine making decisions on that basis.

Where I start to disagree is that the "tribes" in the book are time-zone based. The protagonist has found he is most at home with others from the Eastern Standard time zone. This is problematical since through most of the book he lives in London, and skews his hours to maximize overlap with his "tribe". This bears no resemblance to my personal experience. First, my "tribe" tends to be defined by ideas, not geography. Furthermore, while there is a preponderance of people in the Eastern time zone in my tribe, I have never felt compels to skew my hours to contact them – that's what asynchronous tools like Email are for!

There is however one intriguing twist on this. The author of the book is from Toronto; but currently lives in London. Perhaps this is in fact his personal experience, if not mine.

Posted by Steven at 07:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 28, 2005

Thoughts : Truth and Opinion

For many years, the signature on my EMails contained the lines:

The Truth is The Truth
My Opinions are My Opinions
Which are Which is Unclear

I stand by that philosophy. For many issues, there is in fact an objective truth out there – statement A is correct, and therefore statements B (and C, and D, etc.) are incorrect. There may well be legitimate reasons to doubt if my own understanding of that objective truth is correct; but that doesn't change the fact that the truth in fact exists. In the vast majority of the cases, only one of the statements "X" and "not X" can be true, and we should not hide from that fact.

I mention this because I am getting increasingly concerned by people who, in the name of "multi-culturalism", "non-judgmentalism", and assorted other 'isms, are taking the stance that saying "I believe in X" is a bad thing if X implies not-Y where other people believe Y. Freedom of speech implies the freedom to state your own opinions, no matter how they may conflict with opinions of other people. I believe a multi-cultural society is one in which one individual can say they believe X and another can say they believe not-X and neither has reason fear retribution. I believe a non-judgmental society is one where each person is allowed to use and express their own best judgment while understanding that everyone else is doing the same thing and therefore may come to different conclusions. We must be allowed to state our own opinions while understanding and respecting that other people may have very different opinions.

I do agree that in a civil society there are reasonable expectations on the means by which one states an opinion. Sensitive opinions should only be expressed in a calm and compassionate manner. Incitement to violence against people who don't agree with your opinion is never appropriate. But in the end, we must provide a means for people to state what they believe the truth is no matter how small of a minority may agree with their point of view.

For me as a Christian, I am enjoined to "Speak the truth in love". I believe it is my responsibility to express my understanding of the world, God, etc; but I need to do it in a loving manner – one that takes into account the feelings and opinions of others. That doesn’t mean I don't talk about things which are controversial; but rather that when I do speak of such things I must do it with compassion and respect. I believe that God has given mankind free will (I say that, understanding that some Christians believe in predestination), and if God has allowed people to make up their own minds, who am I to do otherwise?

Posted by Steven at 09:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 30, 2005

Books : The Geography of Thought

The Geography of Thought
How Asians and Westerners Think Differently... and Why
By Richard E. Nisbett

I read this book a couple years ago; but have been thinking about it a lot recently (for reasons which may end up in my blog someday). The premise of the book is that "Eastern" and "Western" cultures leads people "thinking" differently. Most people have heard these kinds of statements before (Westerners are reductionistic, Easterners Holistic; Westerners require consistency, Easterners live with contradictions, Westerners focus on things, while Easterners focus on context). What makes this book interesting (as opposed to another collection of stereotypes) is that the author actually provides some hard evidence to both prove this is the case and at the same time clarifies the true nature of these differences.

As an example, he cites a series of tests done with the equivalent of Sesame Street's "one of these four is not like the others" game. People were presented sets of 4 pictures and ask to identify the one that isn't like the other three (for instance if presented with pictures of a tree, a flower, a tomato plant, and a dog, one might answer that the dog is the odd picture since the other three are plants and the dog is an animal). In the tests described in the book the pictures were more complex and had more than one factor which varied. The tests were conducted with people in Korea, Japan, China, the USA, and a couple of European countries. There were very clear and consistent differences in how the Asian participants answered vs. the American and Europeans, showing differences in what the different people considered significant. So shown a picture of a dog and a puppy, a horse and a colt, a bird and baby bird, and a pair of (adult) goats, the Westerners would pick the birds as the odd picture (the others are all animals), while the Easterners would pick the goats as the others are pictures of parent/child relationships.

The book is full of these kinds of tests, each of which backs up the traditional (stereotypical?) characterization. One of the most interesting ones to me (which refutes that this is somehow genetic or racial) is that one set of tests were gives to bilingual people in Hong Kong, with half the group being presented with the test in English and the other half in Chinese. The study showed that individuals asked the question in English tended to give more "Western" answers than those asked in Chinese.

What I most appreciated in the book was not the demographic information itself (who thought what); but rather the reminder that there is more than one way to view the world. We in the west are very focused on characterizing objects by characteristics. This is an X (which is a subtype of Y which is a subtype of Z) with characteristics A, B, and C. That view has led us to great insights in chemistry and physics; but I fear it has often led us astray in how we understand each other. We try to classify each other, give names to our conditions and behaviors and start to think we understand each others; but I am not sure we do.

Posted by Steven at 07:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Movies : Summer Movies

Some quick movie reviews

I've been out seeing some summer movies, and thought I'd comment on a few:

Mr. and Mrs. Smith
A fun (if violent) romp that is really about a couple rediscovering the passion in their marriage.

Batman Begins
Quite nice. It fills in the blanks in Batman's origins nicely, established key relationships (for instance with police lieutenant Gordon), and generally told a good entertaining tale. This is a much more believable story than most since it shows him learning to become the characters we see in the more established stories.

War of the Worlds
Eh. The best part of the film is Morgan Freeman reading the prologue and epilogue to the original film. Nothing in between adds anything of value.

Fantastic Four
I really wanted to like this film; but in the end it fell short. The individual characterizations were actually fairly good; but the story was not worthy of the performances or the special effects. If they can come up with a better story next time, I think they have the other pieces in place.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Interesting. Entertaining. Bizarre. I am a big fan or the book and the original movie, and despite their having added new material to the end (which I think was unnecessary), I am a fan of this one as well. I don't think it is better than the Gene Wilder version, just different in ways that make seeing it worthwhile.

The Island
I actually saw the 1979 film "Parts: The Clonus Horror" which this is essentially a remake of. Clonus was an absolutely horrid film (bad writing, bad acting, bad directing) built on top of a truly excellent concept. Thankfully The Island takes that good concept and actually makes a good film out of it. It can be enjoyed both for its ideas and for the extended chase sequence which makes up a majority of the film. Thumbs way up from me.

Posted by Steven at 08:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Life : One Hundredth

Well I made it to 100 posts in 125 days – an 80% rate. OK, I did squeeze in the "movies" post today just so I didn't drop below 80%; but I really had intended to make that post at some point.

The bottom line however is that I am still enjoying doing this. I think the next milestone I am looking for is 365 days (however many posts that turns out to be).

Posted by Steven at 08:09 PM | Permalink