Category Archive: Life

Observations about the world without definite conclusions or opinions.

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 16, 2009

I remember

I know exactly where I was, 40 years ago today at 9:32 AM EST – standing in a boat in the middle of the Indian River in Florida looking northeast with a big smile on my face. I was there watching the launch of Apollo 11 from Cape Kennedy (along with throngs of others who had boat and knew that the closest you could get to the launch site was on water).

I also know where I was at a quarter past four, 40 years ago next Monday – in our family living room in Cocoa Beach, watching the landing with my mother and brother. My father, who had worked on the Lunar Landing Module, was still at the office – on call in case there was an emergency. I was in the same location 7 hours later (I was given special dispensation to stay up late that night), watching the first moon-walk.

It was an interesting time of my life, living just south of “the cape” with my father involved in the space program when it was the center of national attention (of course, many of my school mates’ fathers were similarly involved). Behind our house was a 4 story office complex where CBS TV had space, and once we spotted Walter Cronkite on the walkway as we looked up from our backyard. The open stairwell of the complex was also a prime location for watching “lesser” spacecraft launches (satellites, etc.) – either that or down on the beach (depending on which launch pad they were lifting off from). Launches of some sort were fairly common, and the local newspaper always listed the next launch on the upper right corner of the front page, so we all knew when to pause and look.

I had my models of all of the manned spacecraft, and was actually pretty good at drawing the Lunar Module (for those who know what it looked like can appreciate that accomplishment). Dad would sometime share with me some of the designs of the LM, fostering my interest in engineering. There was a real sense in those days that smart people who applied themselves could accomplish great things – not necessarily make a lot of money; but to do something they could be proud of.

And that was really the bottom line of being there at that time and place – pride. Not necessarily pride in America (although there was plenty of that to go around); but pride in humanity – that we had broken free of our home shores and ventured out into the larger universe. It was the start of a new age, although one which hindsight has shown to be slow to progress.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

December 12, 2008

An overwhelming thought

It is popular these days to talk about one's "carbon footprint" – how much carbon gets released into the atmosphere to keep you in your lifestyle? How much carbon is released to produce and transport your food, clothes, gadgets, etc. as well as how much carbon is released as you use your normal mix of transportation, home heating and electricity?

As a Christian, I think I am called to be good stewards of the environment, and so there is some value in considering my carbon footprint. However, for as much as God cares about my stewardship of the environment, he cares about people much more. This led me to ponder a much scarier question:

What is my Suffering Footprint?

How much suffering exists in the world to keep me in my lifestyle? How much suffering results from the processes that produce my food, clothes, gadgets, etc. as well as how much suffering exists as a result of other aspects of my lifestyle? How many people in the world are lacking food, water, medicine because it is more profitable for companies to sell that stuff to people like me?

My answer isn't very encouraging, and I suspect most Americans, if they were honest with themselves, would have equally dismal answers. While I don't directly exploit anyone, my lifestyle is the cause of a lot of exploitation around the world.

Anne and I have tried to improve this over the last couple of years – trying to buy more of our food from sources that certify how the workers are treated, trying to avoid buying clothes that are made in countries that use sweatshop (or worse, involuntary) labor. Trying to reduce our buying of gadgets in general since as you follow the supply chains back on almost anything, it is hard to avoid minerals and the like that are obtained using ill treated workers.

What we have found is that short of dropping out and living in a commune that makes all of its own "stuff", it is next to impossible to avoid these things (and I'm not ready to drop out quite yet). I find the whole idea quite overwhelming; but I don't know what to do about it other than to continue to take the small steps I am already taking. As an individual, it seems completely beyond me to make a difference.

I do however wonder what the Church as a whole could do if we were united behind the idea of ministering healing for the hurts of this world.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

November 07, 2008

A Hidden Virtue of States Rights

A while back I had an interesting conversation with a friend and co-worker who was complaining about how every state in the United States had different laws covering a wide variety of subjects (rules of the road, taxes, voting, etc.). I started off giving the usual justifications (history, the fact that the United States is built on the assumption that the federal government has no authority beyond what we give it, etc.); but eventually came upon an interesting virtue of the system that I had never heard anyone propose – that the “States Rights” rule actually gives the federal government a diverse laboratory for testing government policies. By letting individual states try different solutions to problem like health care, tax policy, welfare, education, etc. the federal government can see the effect of various policies before trying them at the national level.

Want to know the effect of higher taxes? Look at the states that have higher taxes. Want to know how well certain solutions for health care work? Take a look at the states that are using them. Alternatively, want to know how to encourage innovation? Take a look at the policies in the states where a lot of innovation is taking place.

What’s interesting about this is that you can build a whole party platform around the idea. Have a party that is very supportive of trying new policies in individual states; but discourages other states from adopting them until they have been proven to work in at least one state. Then say that they will only adopt at the federal level those policies which have already been proven to work in a diverse set of states.

Now this doesn’t work for those things which only the federal government can do – basic monetary policy, military policy, etc.; but for many other areas of government this can be a quite useful way to both limit the federal government and to make sure what it does do works.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 31, 2008

The State of Discourse

sigh

I had to bite my cyber-tongue this week reading a post on a blog I follow. It was a very political post on a normally non-political blog explaining why the foundations of the United States would shatter if Obama gets elected (or something along those lines). The statement that really caught my ire was in the midst of the author echoing the current McCain sound-bite about Obama being for redistribution of wealth, the author states how Obama is "for socialism not democracy" – as if those were mutually exclusive terms. I started to compose in my mind an explanation of how socialism is an economic system while democracy was political power system and that there is nothing to prevent someone from supporting both ideas. Fortunately I took a quick look at the existing comments and the author's replies and realized that he wasn't interested in hearing other opinions, so I didn't bother.

I wrote this post on my own blog instead.

The bottom line is that I am beyond disappointment in what passes for political discourse these days, particularly from Republicans (Obama, in my opinion, has done a bit better staying focused on issues, but only a bit). The thing is that there are real issues here which can be discussed and debated in front of the electorate - the candidates just aren't doing it.

Take the issue of "redistribution of wealth". The reality is we already have a progressive tax code. Those with higher incomes already get taxed more than those with less, so there is a graph you can plot that shows how much tax you pay for a given level of income. Both candidates want to change that curve. McCain wants to move the whole line down, while Obama wants to change the angle so it is lower at lower incomes and higher at higher incomes. Neither of these approaches represent a fundamental change in the nature of our country, despite the rhetoric.

What's more, some of that income is already being used to assist those at the bottom of the income scale, so America already practices "redistribution of wealth" (taxing the "rich" and giving to the "poor"). In addition, the recent bail-outs of major corporations also represent taking money from a bunch of people and giving it to a small subset of them – another "redistribution of wealth", although one which would appear to tax the middle class and give to the rich (perhaps with good reasons, but a redistribution nonetheless).

My point is that which approach is best between McCain and Obama is a quite reasonable question. Historically, have across the board tax cuts resulted in stronger economies where everyone's boats (even the middle class and poor) have been elevated by the rising tide? If you lower tax rates on higher income, has that in fact resulted in increased investments which resulted in higher incomes for everyone? Conversely, when we have raised the tax rate on higher incomes, has that historically caused downturns in the economy which caused the incomes of lower and middle class workers to decline? What about when we have lowered the tax rates for middle and lower income workers? Has that historically resulted in increased consumer spending which has driven the economy to grow? Or has the money just been spent on cheap imported goods and therefore taken out of our economy?

While I have some ideas on what the answers to these questions are (and therefore whose economic plan will actually be better for the country), I could be convinced to change my mind with more and better data. I would love to hear both parties make the case from hard data as to which approach is better.

But instead I get things like "Obama is a Socialist", "Obama is running for 'Redistributor in Chief'". McCain talks about how he's the one to reach across the aisle and do things in a bipartisan way; but he seems to be the one who is doing most of the name calling which, in my experience, does not lend itself to cooperation.

And the economy is not the only area where there could be serious discussion. On a variety of topics, the two candidates have made proposals that are at some level reasonable (there is at least some reason to think that they might work). So where are the people making the case why one side will be more effective than the others? Instead both sides seem to be going for an emotional response from the electorate.

I know. American voters are not intellectuals and have the attention span of a 2 year old. Emotions are the only way to connect to most of them. The candidates are only doing what works. I shouldn't expect more.

It is all very frustrating.

I do at least give credit to Obama that he occasionally tries to take the high road. I haven't seen much of that from the Republicans this year. Very disappointing from a party I called my own when I was younger.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 29, 2008

Looking at their faces

Living in the suburbs, it is often far too easy to ignore those that are different from yourself.

You can travel from your safe, middle-class home to your safe, middle-class job to a safe, middle-class shopping mall or restaurant (or safe middle-class church on Sundays) and finally back to your safe, middle-class home; all the while zipping on the expressway or freeway past those neighborhoods where other kinds of people live.

That's not to say you don't know that there are people who are different from yourself, or that you don't care about those among them who are in need. Perhaps you donate used clothes to Goodwill or the Salvation Army, or donate to charitable organizations that serve those in need. Yet in the suburbs it is very easy to take on an out-of-sight, out-of-mind perspective and to get comfortable only interacting with people similar to yourself.

Living in the city, that is much harder. Riding the subway or public bus, you come face to face with a broad range of humanity – all ethnic groups, assorted subcultures, almost all socioeconomic strata ("the rich" being excluded since even in the city they find ways to zip past everyone else). People different from you are no longer "out of sight" and therefore are much harder to keep "out of mind" (not that many people don't try).

But even in the city where you are constantly exposed to people who are different, it is easy to begin to objectify and collectivize them. There are "the poor", "the punks" the "ethnic minorities" (pick one) as if those categories define who they are. It is easy to fall into the subtle trap of thinking about the individuals who are like you are the groups who are not.

As I have been riding public transportation these past weeks, I have been taking the time to look at the faces of the other people, and I keep seeing people who really are "like me". Some may belong to different ethic groups or subcultures. Some may belong to different economic strata. Some may be drunk or on drugs. Yet looking at their faces I keep seeing people with hopes and fears are not so different from mine – people who at some level want the same things out of their lives as I do.

I keep thinking about the observation that as different as humans and chimpanzees look, 95% of their DNA is the same. I think an equivalent statement can be made about the hearts and minds people of different cultures and backgrounds – for as different as we might act and appear, deep down we are all far more the same than we are different.

I had several reasons I wanted to move to the city – access to culture, exercise (I am already losing girth), etc. I also had a sense that God had several reasons for wanting me up here (my experience is that God rarely does things for just one reason, although we may be limited to only understanding a limited number of those reasons).

I am starting to see that one of those reasons is to get me to be more comfortable interacting with people who are different from me. Put me in a room with other college educated professionals, and I do fine; but I'm never sure what to say when faced with people's whose backgrounds are very different. My sense is that this is one of the things God wants to work on in me while we live in SF, and that my rides on the subway are the beginning of those lessons.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

October 24, 2008

Time and Space in the City

When living in the suburbs, you tend to measure distances in miles, and to a lesser extent (not always consciously) in stop-signs and traffic lights. Limited access roads (highways, expressways, etc.) tend to distort the geometry of suburbs making places that look farther away on a map actually “closer”.

Distances are even more convoluted in cities where distances are primarily measured in transfers – how many times you need to wait for a new train, bus, trolley, etc. in your journey; and then by the mode(s) of transportation themselves – places reachable by bus are generally father away than those reached by subway regardless of the number of miles involved.

The wildcard in the city is walking. It is the only mode of transportation that requires no waiting and which can often provide short-cuts over other modes (through parks, against the flow on one-way streets, etc.). Spending an extra 10 minutes walking can often be worth it if it eliminates the need for another transfer.

The result of this is that the sense of distance in cities (for those who are acclimated to the environment) is very complex and bears little relationship to what is seen on a map. Having spent a fair amount of time in London, I have a reasonable sense of distances there, and particularly those places where a little more walking can buy big savings on travel time. I am slowly learning the same lessons in San Francisco.

The other artifact of the cost of transfers is that if you need to be someplace on-time (like a movie), you almost always end up there early since you have to assume worst case transfer times (you assume you always just miss a bus or train and have to wait for the next one). The result is that you always need to plan ahead not just your route; but also what you will do with your extra time when you get to your destination. You almost need to practice a form of double-think, simultaneously thinking you are going to be late and thinking you are going to be early.

While I am still learning the essential data for San Francisco, I already have my “city thinking” up and running and trying to optimize my travel around town.

The other thing I note is that travel to/from a city is not symmetrical. When traveling into a city you need to consider the cost and effort to park (or the cost and effort to use alternative transport into the city), as well as the effort to get from your parking place (or transport terminal) to wherever you need to be. On the other hand, since suburbs are built around car travel, you can generally assume that ample parking is available near anyplace you want to go. The result is that it is “harder” to travel from the suburbs into the city than to travel from the city into the suburbs. While going from Mountain View into SF was something that Anne and I did not take lightly the last 19 years, we find going from SF back down into Mountain View much easier.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

March 14, 2008

Joseph Weizenbaum, RIP

And while I am at it, Joseph Weizenbaum, creator of the computer program "Eliza" died yesterday. I always respected him as one of the few professors at MIT who refused to take defense department grants for his work. Those who know him and his contributions to computer science will appreciate this tribute.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

E. Gary Gygax, RIP

Last Tuesday, Ernest Gary Gygax, co-inventor (together with Dave Arneson.) of the game "Dungeons and Dragons" passed away. I met him once at a gaming convention and found him to be a quite pleasant fellow despite his being yet another inventor who lost control of his invention and the profits thereof.

While Gygax and Arneson's original rules for D&D (which I am old enough to have actually played) were pretty bad – being a hack (D&D) on top of a hack (Chainmail) on top of a set of war-game miniature rules – their real contribution was the whole concept of role playing game rules. The idea of each player controlling the actions and evolution of a single character in a game based on a set of rules has transcended the details of the specific example Gygax and Arneson came up with at first and has spawned a whole industry that has reached well beyond the tabletop and oddly shaped dice.

These days my only contact with D&D is playing computer games whose rules are derived (sometimes distantly) from the system; but I still respect what Gygax and Arneson created and the influence it has had on gaming.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

March 06, 2008

Things Everyone Should Understand

This started out as an attempt to answer one of Melissa’s questions; but it morphed as I struggled to find an answer and eventually ended up as this – a list of things I think it is important that everyone needs to understand about Life, The Universe, and Everything.

1. Real Christianity is not what is practiced in most Christian churches. What is practiced in most churches is a set of rituals and rules meant to appease God. Real Christianity is about having a relationship with God where He helps transform you into His image. To understand this better – read the Bible for yourself.

2. The world is a complex place and therefore most actions have unintended consequences. Too often in the world, people see problem A and propose an obvious solution B. The problem is, that while B may in fact solve A, it almost always also produce some other effect C, which can be even worse than A - or sometimes it is better (unintended consequences can cut both ways). I have seen this in the software industry – you want engineers to be more productive so you pay them bonuses based on the number of lines of code they write. Productivity appears to jump; but you eventually discover that you are stuck with fat, slow code that has been “padded” to increase line counts. By far the best book on this is Levitt’s “Freakonomics” which among other things deals with the near perfect correlation between abortion rates in various states in the US and drops in the adult crime rate in those states 18 years later. Levitt doesn’t judge if this is a good thing or not, only that it is an unintended consequence of abortion policy.

3. People need to understand that everyone is biased, even themselves. I use to teach a class on church history, and always started each session with the observation “All history is biased, even this one”. It’s not that I intentionally spun my presentation in some specific direction; but church history is a big subject and even the process of picking what facts to share and which to ignore is influenced by my assumptions about what is important. In the same way, it is important to keep in mind when listening to anyone – a news reporter, a blogger, an author, a pastor, anyone – that what the person says will always be influenced by characteristics of the speaker that will not always be obvious. A question I often ask myself when hearing some idea for the first time is: “What would someone who disagrees say?” Getting views from other perspectives is always useful, even if you are fairly sure whose opinion is correct. This is especially true with regard to your own ideas. Having a circle of friend you can bounce ideas off of is one of the most valuable things in the world.

4. It’s not all about you. People so often get caught up in how the world is conspiring against them. The unfortunate reality is that most of the world doesn’t even know they exist. This is a harsh lesson; but one that is best learned early. The store clerk who gave you the dirty look probably didn’t even know you were there – the look was a reflection of something else they happened to be thinking about at the time. As I have said before “Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by mere incompetence”. While we are each the stars of our own stories that play out in our minds, with the exception of a few people who are close to us, we are just bit players in almost everyone else’s dramas.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

February 22, 2008

Quality of this blog

I have had reason in recent days to go back and read some of the older posts on this blog and have come to the discouraging conclusion that the quality of my writing has not been as good since November as it was in the first years of my blogging. I don't have a clear idea yet why this is true (it isn't just a matter of time invested); but my older posts seem to be far better crafted than my more recent ones. I'm going to have to think about this.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 14, 2008

The Politics of Greed

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic

- Benjamin Franklin

Who wouldn’t want guaranteed food, lodging, clothing, education, and healthcare if it was offered to them? Who wouldn’t want to be guaranteed safety - a world to live in where nothing could do them harm? All benefits look great if you ignore the cost.

But there is always a cost.

Everything that politicians promise comes with a price tag; but they never talk about that. Often the cost is financial. Sometimes the cost is social. But there is always a cost. Unfortunately, political discourse in America often degenerates into the politics of greed. Who can more convincingly promise more benefits while simultaneously hiding the costs?

And these days this isn’t a Democrat vs. Republican issue. The benefits each party promises are different; but the share a common commitment to not discuss the costs. Universal health care has a cost. National security has a cost. Early childhood education has a cost. The war in Iraq has a cost.

Now sometimes that cost is worth it - I for one believe the benefits of an excellent educational system far outweighs the costs. The problem is not that there is a price to pay for various programs and policies; but that the discussion of that price rarely makes it into the public forums. At one point the news media might have served as the watchdog to ensure that citizens are kept informed of the whole picture; but the news media today is too driven by their own greed to risk not telling the public what they want to hear.

So the vast majority of citizens are left to make their political choices based on only half the picture. Perhaps Benjamin Franklin is right and this is the beginning of the end of our republic.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

November 28, 2007

The Seven Deadly Holidays

One of the recent comments on a previous post reminded me of a discussion I got into with some friends a while back. The essence was that while the various holidays we celebrate in the USA are supposed to be about various honorable things, in practice they seem to be celebrations of the seven deadly sins:

- Valentines Day: Lust ('nuff said)
- Thanksgiving: Gluttony (likewise)
- Christmas: Greed (I want this, I want that)
- Sloth: Presidents Day (just an excuse for a day off work)
- Wrath: ??? – we never got one for this
- Envy: New Year's Eve (who has the best party and who gets to go to it)
- Pride: Fourth of July (US is number one!)

Any suggestions for when we might be celebrating Wrath?

Anyway – when I thought about this seriously, I found it rather depressing because there does seem to be some truth to it.

Posted by Steven at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

January 24, 2007

Bits vs. atoms

The subtext of a lot discussion for the last decade has been the distinction between atoms vs. bits. As an example, it used to be that you could only purchase music as atoms (records, tapes, CDs); but now music can be conveniently dealt with as just bits (MP3 files, etc.) which has forced various industries to rethink how they do things (or try and force bits to behave like atoms). Photography used to be about atoms (film, prints, etc.) and now is about bits. While (so far) attempts to get rid of the atoms in most books have failed, reference books have almost completely been replaced by their equivalent bits. Even the process of shopping is now dominated by the bit-equivalent of stores.

I mention this because I recently found myself asking a personal variation of atoms vs. bits question. For reasons not worth elaborating on here, I began to ponder if some disaster were to strike (earthquake, fire, whatever), and I only had time to grab one thing before I ran from the house, what would I grab? What I found striking (and worth blogging) was that the choice was absolutely clear – my backup hard disk. It contains things like the scans of every photograph I have ever taken, my Email logs for the last 15 years, all of my personal writing projects, etc. In short, it contains all of the (nearly) irreplaceable bits I value most.

Now I do own some atoms I value: photographs of our wedding that Anne and I haven't scanned in (yet?); a handful of Apollo (moon landing) related memorabilia I got from my dad (who worked on the project); my autographed copy of Midnight Nation by JMS; my copy of the rare board game "Campaign for North Africa"; a half-dozen out-of-print books that would be difficult to replace. But the problem with atoms is that they are big and clumsy to carry in large numbers. For as much as I value these various objects in my life individually, I'd need to pile quite a number of them together to have the same value as all of the things recorded as bits in my backup drive (which I can comfortably slip into a coat pocket). It is an interesting measure of how much my life has become digital.

What's more, even though I am a computer professional, I don't think it was that long ago that the idea that I would end up valuing bits that much would have been quite strange to me. It used to be that bits were big and bulky to carry around and never were quite as good as "the real thing" (atoms). Even knowing Moore's Law, I'd never considered the possibility that I'd be able to carry enough bits around with me that I would choose them over an equivalent encumbrance in atoms.

Now for the moment I may be on the leading edge of this trend; but looking around, this seems to be the way the industrialized world is going. Which leads me to Microsoft's "immortal computing" research project and related efforts. After all, if what people value most are their bits, then how long will tombstones made of atoms be valued as memorials? There are already companies in the business of running "virtual cemeteries", where each deceased loved one has their own web page to be preserved indefinitely. Add to that all of the bits someone accumulates over their life (photos, etc.) which increasingly give a detailed picture of who they were and what they were like. Perhaps instead of building pyramids or other grand tombs out of atoms, future generations will seek immortality through their bits.

Posted by Steven at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

May 09, 2006

A funning this happened to me…

…on the way to this blog entry.

A week ago today, I posted on "a political thought experiment", outlining a theoretical situation I ponder from time to time. My intent was to post part 2 of that series today, explaining my own answer to the problem; and then to post part 3 next week which would apply that answer to the question of governments of people instead of territory.

However, as I began to write up the blog post, I discovered that my arguments were not as compelling to me in black and white as they had been bouncing around in my head. Now (so far at least) I haven't actually changed my mind on anything; but I have to concede that I am less certain as I was of my answers. Given that, I have decided to postpone the remainder of this series until I have thought through the question more.

Instead, I will make two observations on this occurrence. The first is that another unexpected benefit of writing this blog is that it has forced me to think through my opinions more clearly. It is one thing to form an opinion on one's mind, and quite another to try and explain that opinion in a compelling manner to another person. For those who value their own intellectual integrity, I highly recommend blogging.

The other observation is that I continue to view humility as one of the principle virtues. All learning begins with the willingness to acknowledge that you may be wrong, and stops as soon as you cease to be willing to listen to alternatives. Openness to experimental proof or counter-proof is a hallmark of science. The willingness to consider alternative explanation is the cornerstone of skepticism. Humility can lead you to value both the wise man for his experience and the fool for his alternative point of view. We would have far fewer problems in the world if humility was more greatly valued.

Posted by Steven at 07:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

April 12, 2006

Stages of Empathy

The recent comment thread on my "Steve's Law #1, reprise" got me thinking about the whole concept of maturity. Now I accept that maturity is a complex concept with many dimensions; but I'd like for focus for a moment on one aspect of maturity – empathy, the ability to stand in someone else's shoes and look out their eyes at a situation.

My observation is that are four stages through which people progress in the development of empathy.

Psychologists tell us that when we are born, our understanding of the universe that there is the person "me", and there is "everything else" where everything else exists only to meet our needs. All of the people, objects, etc. in the world are just props for our little drama and exist for us to command. I call this the "command stage". Our communications at this stage (whether by sounds, words, or actions) are all commands to make our environment do what we want. The vast majority of people seem to get past this stage, although I occasionally run into someone who just doesn't seem to realize that other people are not props for them to position and use however they want.

The next stage of empathy comes when we realize (sometimes painfully) that not only are some of those other things in the world people like us (and therefore not ours to command); but that we also must contend in some way with those other people for control of our environment. I call this the "conflict stage". You can tell when a child has entered this phase because the word "mine" suddenly becomes a key part of their vocabulary (it would not occur to someone in the command stage to say "mine" since everything is theirs).

Here is where you start to see gender differences in American culture (I can not speak to how things evolve in other cultures, or if these differences are genetic in origin). Boys tend to resolve these conflicts by competition – proving who deserves to be in control; while young girls (I am told, having no personal experience) tend to resolve these conflicts by negotiation – discussing who should control what. Both methods are used to determine what in the world is "mine", what is "yours" and what is "ours", although the approach used by boys tends to produce much smaller set of things which are "ours" than the approach used by girls in American culture.

The third stage of empathy comes when you realize other people are not just things with which you have to establish boundaries; but are worthy of value and respect in their own right. Here is where true empathy begins because you begin to put value on how things affect other people and therefore start to look at situations from other people's of view. I call this the "respect stage". At this stage people start talking about how they feel as opposed to just what they do.

It is here that the gender differences in how people approach the conflict stage begin to bear fruit. One can not become successful at negotiation without at least starting to consider how someone else might value things. Given that, women tend to transition into this phase much faster than men do since they have already begun to develop the tools they need. Men in American culture just don't have many situations at a young age where they are asked to consider how something affects someone else until they start dating, at which point they discover they don't have much in the way of experience to draw on. Dating and women are a mystery because they have never had to consider anything from someone else's point of view. Many men do not make the transition into this stage until they have been part of the workspace for several years and have had to negotiate with bosses, co-workers, and customers. Some people (of both genders) don't make this transition at all.

Finally, my observation is that there is a fourth stage in the development of empathy. This is when you realize that other people are not like you. Individuals who manage to enter the third stage tend to look at how situations affect other people assuming that other people have the same desires, values, and interests as they do. In small homogeneous environments, this can be a valid assumption; but it is not true in the general case. The final stage then is when you not only value how a situation affects other people; but when you realize it might affect them differently than it might affect you. I call this the "diversity phase".

My observation is that American culture values homogeneity – cultural "differences" are only respected after they have already been assimilated. As a simplistic example, lots of Americans like "Mexican" food; but the kind of food they like is rarely actually served in Mexico. Americans then (of both genders) are given few opportunities to see the world from fundamentally different perspectives, which makes seeing the smaller, subtler differences that may exists with their neighbors much harder to see. Given that, I have met relatively few Americans who have matured into this fourth stage.

Posted by Steven at 09:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

February 02, 2006

Yes, scientists can be wrong

Every so often I get into a scientific discussion with someone where I am asking them to cite the evidence for some position and I get in response some form of the statement that "the vast majority of reputable scientists acknowledge that this is true". Besides not actually answering the question that I asked, I have a problem with that argument since it is built on the assumption that "the vast majority of reputable scientists" can not be wrong.

But they can; and I was reminded recently of another concrete case where this was true.

I am already on record in this blog as not being a fan of Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. The introduction of the concept of "an observer" without adequately defining that term was (and is) in my opinion a great disservice to science. However, that still leaves the question: what's the alternative. Now back when Bohr and company were formulating their explanation, there were other options on the table. These other options however had one common feature – they made use of "hidden variables". While the details varied form theory to theory, they all relied on the idea that the crazy, counter-intuitive things that were being measured in the various experiments were actually side effects of some deeper process involving new attributes which we were not able to directly measure and that if we understood physics at the level of these un-measurable attributes, then what we say in the experiments would actually make perfect sense. I'm glossing over a lot here; but folks can read for themselves if they want to understand more.

So there was a brief period where Copenhagen Interpretation and several other Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics vied for acceptance in that free market of ideas that is (or is supposed to be) science. Then the "hidden variables" bubble was burst. John von Neumann, one of the greatest mathematicians of his day, who had an interest in the mathematics of quantum mechanics, developed and published in 1932 a proof that ANY "hidden variables" interpretation of quantum mechanics would produce inconsistent results. This proof swept through the physics community, sweeping aside all models that used hidden variables, leaving the Copenhagen Interpretation, with all of its unresolved issues, the only option.

For the next 40 years, every student of physics was taught that hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics did not work, and to say otherwise would be equivalent of saying that John von Neumann made a math error. At the end of those 40 years, the world was dominated by a generation of physicists who "knew" that the Copenhagen Interpretation was THE interpretation of quantum mechanics. Scientists who tried to get papers published that used hidden-variable solutions had them rejected by respectable scientific journals as being provably in error. It was completely accurate to say "The vast majority of reputable scientists acknowledged that this is true".

But they were wrong.

As it turns out, John von Neumann DID make a math error – buried in his argument he assumed something was commutative that wasn't and as a result his whole argument fell apart. Actually, not his whole argument – parts of von Neumann's paper still held and provide constraints on what forms hidden-variable interpretations could take; but as a proof that hidden-variables didn't work at all and that the Copenhagen Interpretation must therefore be correct, von Neumann was wrong.

This fact was discovered in the late 50's, and by then the inertia behind von Neumann's paper and the Copenhagen Interpretation was so great that it took a while for the error to be recognized by the physics community. Even today, many of the physics texts used by major universities continue to describe the Copenhagen Interpretation as the only way to explain quantum mechanics, and those physicists willing to even look at alternatives are in the minority.

I think this story is an important object lesson to aspiring scientists. The bottom line is scientists are not immune to hero worship, group think, and institutional inertia. "Everyone else believes this" is just not a valid argument.

Posted by Steven at 06:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

January 09, 2006

Things I have learned about writing

Talking about "The First Five Pages" got me thinking about other lessons I have learned about writing and getting published by talking to other successful (as opposed to aspiring) writers.

We all do it differently.
For all of the writers I have had opportunity to speak to, there have been no two that have approached the act of writing the same way. To cover a couple of extremes, I have met authors who meticulously outline and plan their stories in advance – who don't write a paragraph until they know what they need to say on that page and that chapter. I have also met (very) successful writers who experience the story as they write it, with only the vaguest idea of where it is headed – they simply write the story as it appear in their head and trust their subconscious to organize it (which for these people, it does). This is why I tend to avoid "how to write" books – they generally reflect how that particular author writes; but that's only helpful to a small percent of the population who happens to write the same way.

The difference between publishing short fiction and novels
I talked with an editor for a major publisher who started his career working for a magazine that published short fiction. I always found his insights to be interesting. The short version (to quote him as best as I remember (so you can blame him for the sexism)) "Publishing short fiction is like a series of one night stands. You don't care about the woman's personality as long as she is good in bed. Publishing a novel is more like getting married. Yeah, you want the sex to be good; but that's only a part of it".

The point he was making (he explained) is that short fiction magazines are all about getting the best stories you can get with minimal effort into each issue. The only rule is that you need one story each issue from a "name" author that you can list on the front to entice people to buy the issue off the newsstand. Other than that, you want the most interesting stories you can get that don't require a lot of editing. The profit margins aren't high enough to worry about editing too much – you make some requests of the author; but if the next revision isn't good enough, you go on to the next story. It's all about the story. It doesn't matter if the author is a jerk because you aren't spending a lot of time dealing with them (none, if the story doesn't need any editing). You agree on a price and that's it (which made me think of a slightly different analogy….)

Novels however are a very different story (he continued). The number one factor in what novels people buy is the author – if the customer liked a previous book by that author, they'll buy more for them. The number two factor isn't even close. So in novel publishing, author's names are brands which have to be established and maintained. For a publishing house to agree to publish a novel means that they are making a long term commitment to that person – to build up their name as a brand and then (if the first book succeeds) take advantage of that investment by publishing more books by then. It's not uncommon these days for first time authors to have to sign contracts to deliver more books to that publisher; otherwise it won't be worth the publisher's effort. To maximize the success of the book, a publishing house is willing to invest a fair bit in helping the author edit the book. All of that means that people at the publishing house are going to spend a lot of time with the author. So while good writing is a factor, being able to work with the person is also important. They'd rather publish a good novel by someone who is easy to work with than a great novel by someone who is flaky or a jerk.

Which is why (I have been told by multiple published writers) conventions like WorldCon are so important – they give editors a chance to size up a writer on a personal level. If they like you, then they can ask you to send them your manuscript (which, depending on how they ask, means it may be "solicited" and therefore is one step ahead of the multitudes in the slush pile). Of course, it only works if you don't make a fool of yourself talking to them; but that's a subject for another day.

Posted by Steven at 07:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

January 04, 2006

Steve's Law #1, reprise

I have previously posted the first of my own collection of laws (why should Major Edward A. Murphy, Jr. have all of the fun?):

"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence."

I've been thinking about this a bit more of late, and how this is derived from a more fundamental truth - that people are not as conscious of each other most of them think. It is very easy for people to observe someone else's behavior (the words they use, their body language, etc.) and read into it things like "they hate me", "they think I'm ugly", "they think I'm a fool", etc. when the unfortunate truth is the other person is not thinking about them at all.

The reality is that most people in the world, most of the time are so consumed by their own insecurities, their own problems, their own feelings; that they put very little energy into thinking about other people. And when they do think about other people, it is usually to figure out what the other person is thinking about them. The result is that what we see in other people is often just a reflection of our own insecurities.

As a result, many "relationships" (whether as friends or enemies) end up being like a pair of mirrors facing each other - reflecting their images back and forth but having no actual content. I react to what I think you are thinking about me based on superficial data and my own insecurities, and you react to that, and I react back, and so on. No real understanding of each other is involved, just an endless series of reflections of our own images projected onto each other.

What's truly sad is the amount of power we give to other people this way. We react to what we think other people think of us, and by doing that we give them power over us (after all, we are allowing them to effect our actions). The other person is often completely unaware of the power we have given them (and may not be very aware of us in general). Is it any wonder that in their ignorance they miss-use that power?

This trend is particularly problematical in families. We all have an innate expectation that we are important to our relatives; but quite often, that is simply not true. Often our relatives are people just like us with their own set of issues which consume their thinking. They may have very little "mind-share" available to really think about the others in the family and how their own actions effect the rest of the family - they are too busy thinking about how other people's actions effect them.

It takes a person who is very secure in their own identity and their place in the universe to get to the point of really considering what other people are going through; to think about how their actions affect other people. One needs to be at a point where it doesn't matter what other people think of you because you already know who you are. That then releases you from the burden of interpreting what other people think of you, and frees you to then actually think about them. This is the ideal to which we should all strive. However, while we struggle to reach that place, we need to be careful not to assume other people are already there - that they are actually conscious of their actions towards us. It is far safer to assume that other people (even family members) are unaware of how they affect us.

Posted by Steven at 07:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (13)

November 18, 2005

Statements of Rights

I have often thought that many of today's big legal issues could have been avoided if a bit more time had been invested in the writing of the "Bill of Rights" as it has been incorporated into the United States constitution. Those who know history know that many of the founding fathers thought a statement of fundamental rights was unnecessary as such rights were obvious. In such a climate, the details of the wording of these amendments were not given the benefit of intense debate that the constitution itself was afforded. People then knew what rights they wanted guaranteed and easily read into the text what they expected, and little thought was given to how the wording might be understood and misunderstood a couple hundred years later.

When I am in the mood to contemplate my own political philosophy, one tool I use is to try to draft my own statement of human rights – what things do I think should be guaranteed by the constitution? How can such rights be described in unambiguous ways? I would encourage anyone who wants to clarify their own views to try the same exercise.

As part of that process I have often gone looking at other statements of rights which have been drafted over the years. I was recently reminded (Wikipedia is wonderful) of one of the best. "Part 1" of the constitution of the State of New Hampshire in the US is an enumeration of 38 (now 42) rights which are guaranteed to all citizen of that state. Drafted in 1784 (before the US constitution), I have always found it to be a better and clearer document than the national Bill of Rights, and it includes some quite interesting statements.

I'll start with the best – Article 10:

[Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Yes, every citizen of New Hampshire is guaranteed the right to overthrow the government if it no longer serves the common good and it all other means to change it fail. Perhaps that's why they still don't have an income tax there.

Now relating to my recent blog on civility, the New Hampshire constitution includes two interesting statements (articles 3 and 4):

[Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.

[Rights of Conscience Unalienable.] Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of Conscience.

The document establishes that society is about an exchange of rights – that one yields some rights in exchange for the guarantee of others by the state. Furthermore, it establishes that the state can not compel the yielding of rights without providing guarantees of equivalent value, which implies that it can never demand that some rights be yielded because no such compensation is possible. As a statement of political theory, I find these simple statements amazing in their power and clarity.

There's much more (for instance, I think article 6 is a much better statement of the "Separation of Church and State" than what we have in the First Amendment in the US constitution); but I don't want to bore you with more of this if you aren't interested. If I have managed to whet your appetite, take a look here.

Posted by Steven at 04:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

November 13, 2005

Living in Silicon Valley

I had previously made some comments about why I personally don't like living in Silicon Valley; and didn't want to leave the impression that things are all bad here. There are actually a number of good and otherwise interesting things to say about life here which I feel obligated to pass on.

The Good

The absolutely best thing about living in Silicon Valley is how diverse a community this is. In addition to the normal economic immigrants you find everywhere in the United States, this area is famous around the world as "the place to be" for those skilled with computers to come and make a name for them selves. While there was some of this in Boston, where I lived previously, that was but a minor trickle compared to the flood of people pressing to come here on even a temporary basis. While every job I had in Boston had a significant number of people from outside of the United States; at many of the jobs I have had in Silicon Valley, those born in America were a minority of the workers.

And where the people come, they bring their culture along with them, and they seek out the comforts of home. The result is that the ethnic diversity of the workforce is reflected in the ethnic diversity in shopping and restaurants. In previous places I have lived, there were often Chinese markets that specialized in selling those ingredients people from China would need in order to cook "home food". Here in Silicon Valley, we have Chinese markets, Korean markets, Japanese markets, Arabic markets, Persian markets, Dutch markets, and even an "English" grocery store (selling goods imported from the U.K.) – not to mention a most excellent German butcher shop. This diversity is also reflected in restaurants. While I was fond of "Middle Eastern" restaurants in other locales, I was never able to appreciate the subtle differences between Persian, Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian, and Egyptian food until I came here and discovered restaurants that specialized in those local flavors. In all of my travels, only New York City rivals Silicon Valley in culinary diversity.

In addition to diversity, I must also recognize that the music scene here is excellent, although I do not often avail myself of the opportunities it presents. I suspect this is an after effect of the role the area played in the 60's. While San Francisco was the center of that music scene, many of the famous artists actually came from down here in the suburbs and they returned when Haight/Ashbury became a tourist destination in the 70's (and those that didn't, return here on their reunion/retirement tours). Very near where I live are the Shoreline Amphitheatre and the Mountain Winery where Bill Graham's organization (the 60's rock impresario, not the evangelist) still puts on concerts.

The Odd

The single oddest thing you need to learn when you come to Silicon Valley is the weather. Specifically that this area is a collection of microclimates. In Seattle, it is said "if you don't like the weather, wait 5 minutes". In Silicon Valley, if you don't like the weather, drive 5 miles. When you hear a weatherman on a radio say "The high today will be 50-80 degrees", they are not being imprecise, they are indicating that within the range of that station, some places will only have a high of 50, and others will have a high of 80. It is very easy to drive 15 miles (without a significant change in elevation) and experience a 10 degree difference in temperature. You can see this phenomenon visually on your first clear day here. The Silicon Valley is in fact a valley, bounded by the Santa Cruz Mountains on one side and the Diablo Mountains on the others. While smog and fog often interfere with the ability to see both sides of the valley simultaneously, when you can see them you realized that year-round, the Santa Cruz Mountains are lush and green, while for most of the year, the Diablo Mountains (only 30 miles away) are dead and brown. There are a few months in the winter where the Diablo Mountains gain a delicate fuzz of green grass; but it quickly withers when the rains stop. When we first moved here, Anne's grandmother (who had been here for a while) told us that there are only two seasons in Silicon Valley – brown and green; and she was largely correct.

Well, that should get the local chamber of commerce off my back. There are good reasons for people to live here beyond the jobs, they just aren't as important to me as they might be to other people.

Posted by Steven at 04:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

November 09, 2005

Vacation spots

Since you asked…..

Picking a "favorite" vacation spot is hard; because there are many reasons to go on vacation. Sometimes you go to relax. Sometimes you go to be able to spend time with someone. Sometimes you go to experience something new. Sometimes you go for some kind of stimulation that isn't a part of your normal life. Most real vacations are some mix of these; and the requirements for any specific vacation will weight these factors differently. One time a good vacation might be mostly relaxation, while another time novelty and stimulation might be paramount. So there is no one "best" vacation spot. Given that, I'll try to do my best in listing the places I have enjoyed.

First and foremost, there are places of such supreme natural beauty that I think everyone should make a point to visit them. The top few on this list for me are: Yellowstone, Yosemite, Bryce Canyon, Columbia River Gorge, Niagara Falls, Mammoth Cave, Grand Canyon, Carlsbad Caverns. These are "must see" locations. The problem is, once you have seen then, that's it. Unless you can bring someone new with you and see the place fresh through their eyes, I don't see these as places to visit again, which makes it hard for me to call them "favorites"

That leaves places to visit to experience the creations of mankind (as opposed to God).

For the arts and museums, nothing tops New York, London, and Paris (Italy has great art as well; but I haven't been there yet, so I can't comment). Paintings, sculpture, plays, concerts, science, technology - there is always some form of intellectual or cultural inspiration available in those cities, no matter how often you visit. Chicago (Field Museum and Art Institute) and San Francisco (Exploratorium and Museum of Modern Art) would be close runners-up in my book.

For food, I'd go to New York, London, perhaps Atlanta (it has a collection of very unique restaurants), or believe it or not Silicon Valley – one benefit of living in one of the most culturally diverse parts of the world is you have access to just about every kind of cuisine that exists.

For pure relaxation, I'd go to Las Vegas or Santa Fe (particularly if you stay at the LaFonda). No place tops Vegas if what you need is to be pampered, and Santa Fe is a great place to just get away from it all. Orlando can also fall into this category if you can resist the temptation to go see the attractions.

My favorite overall?

London – no doubt, largely because it is the best place to keep my options open. I have already seen all of the "must see" sights, so I am comfortable spending a day just relaxing – watching the ducks in St James Park, taking a leisurely stroll down the south bank of the Thames; or if I want stimulation I can fill my day seeing museums, going to plays, listening to concerts. If I want fine food, there are numerous excellent restaurants with a variety of cuisines; or I can just pop down to the corner pub for a Cornish pasty or some fish and chips. If I want novelty, there are always new plays and new exhibits, and a few hundred smaller museums I still haven't gotten to. Whatever I am in the mood for on a given day, I can find some way to satisfy it in London.

Posted by Steven at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

November 01, 2005

Visions of the future

I read a lot of science fiction (and even some fantasy). At their best, these genres provide the author the ability to create situations which, while not strictly realistic, put the points the author wants to make in sharp relief. Doing that in the context of "the real world" is much trickier as the reader brings a lot more of their own biases and baggage to the story.

I also find the various "visions of the future" found in science fiction to be interesting. While sci-fi has a rather poor track record of getting the big trends right, I think the predictions tell us a lot about the kinds of questions people were (and are) asking themselves. Currently I see two trends in sci-fi – singularity and tribalism.

"The singularity" is the ultimate form of Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock". The idea is that we will shortly face such rapid social changes because of key technologies that it is impossible for us to understand what life will be like afterwards – it will be like trying to see past the event horizon of a black hole or to determine what existed before the big bang (both "singularities" in the mathematical sense). The technologies which will bring this about are either human genetic manipulation – how can you talk about the future of human society when we aren't really human any more; or the ability to "download" our consciousnesses into computers (and perhaps back) - creating computer programs that are "us" in every respect, only immortal (the ultimate transition from atoms to bits).

Ignoring for the moment the plausibility and timing of humanity achieving such a singularity – what does it say about society now, today, that people are even contemplating this as our future? Is this some expression of anxiety that the human race loosing its humanity? (Is about ability to instantly see the latest tragedies around the world driving us to despair?) Or is it an expression of hope that we will one day transcend human nature? Or is it simply that in a society that believes it has killed god, that we must now remake ourselves in his image?

The other trend I see repeated by sci-fi authors is the collapse of the nation state and the rise of a new, technologically mediated, tribalism. Just as "atoms" are giving way to "bits" in society today (information is becoming more important that the physical forms used to convey that information); in the same way (it is proposed), geography must give way to community. Why (it is asked) must nations be associated with physical locations? Isn't that just as foolish as maintaining the association between a song and a disk of plastic? In a world with rapid global communication, why do you need to live near the collection of people you are governed with? The prediction then is that geographical nation states will decline in power, becoming mere service providers to a collection of tribes which know no geographic boundaries. People will form associations with other like-minded people around the world, and these associations will hold the power, not geographic governments.

Again, ignoring the question of how such a transition would take place or if such a system would be stable, what does it say that these ideas are being proposed? Is this the ultimate statement of cynicism about the government? Or is it a reflection of cynicism about our own ability to form compromises with each other, assuming that we must eventually fracture? Or is it just a reflection of the positive experience in the internet age of finding that dozen people around the world that share your obscure hobby or peculiar political beliefs?

I have no answers for these questions. I can say for myself that I find the idea of the singularity scary and the idea of neo-tribalism somewhat comforting; and that is likely a reflection of my own need for community. What underlying social trend may be influencing other writers is unclear to me.

Posted by Steven at 09:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 25, 2005

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

I remember watching an interview with George Burns (the vaudevillian, comedian, actor – for those too young to know) shortly before he died in 1996 at the age 100. What struck me most were his observations on how much the word had changed in his lifetime. He was born in 1896, 7 years before the Wright brothers' first flight, and lived to not only see man land on the moon, but for space flight to become uninteresting to most people.

I think on occasion what changes my life will span. I am, I hope, no more than half-way through my life, and I have already seen so much.

When I was born, telephones had rotary dials. They were physically wired to a network that was run by a national monopoly that not only owned the network; but owned the actual phones (which you paid rent on). Now I own my wireless phone, which is small enough to keep in my pocket and has a keypad on which I can enter no only numbers but text messages. To use it, I pay a nominal fee to one of many companies competing for my patronage.

When I was born, television was in black and white. Televisions were great hulking beasts which could be used to watch one of 6 channels (and that was a lot of options – we lived near New York City); but only if the weather was good and the antenna on your roof was lined up right. Now televisions have flat panel screens and hundreds of channels are made available over cable; and if I don't feel like watching a show when it is broadcast, I can save it on a hard disk to view later.

When I was born, computers filled rooms and were owned by governments, universities and corporations. Now there are computers in toasters and coffee machines (some of which are more powerful than those that used to fill rooms).

When I was born, it had only been three years since Crick and Watson had discovered the structure of DNA. Diseases were described largely in terms of symptoms. Now we have mapped the human genome and are in the process of mapping the proteome. More and more diseases are described in terms of molecular interactions and treatments are being created to target those reactions directly.

When I was born, most people never met anyone outside of the town in which they were born. Now, thanks to the internet, people have friends around the world.

When I was born, racial bigotry was considered normal and homosexuality was so shameful that it wasn't spoken of. Now bigotry is shameful and homosexuality is becoming a source of pride.

When I was born, two superpowers held the world hostage under threat of annihilation if either did not get its way. Now small groups of religious fanatics threaten to achieve the same dishonor.

Half a life down. Half (or more?) to go.

What changes have I yet to see?

Posted by Steven at 06:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

October 22, 2005

Defective thinking

I was reading the Wikipedia article on Crystallographic Defects and noticed some interesting parallels with the kinds of flaws people develop in their thinking. Nothing deep here, just an interesting (to me at least) way of looking at things.

One class of defects which crystals develop are voids, where there is space that the crystal has simply not filled in. We likewise have voids in our understanding of the world – opinions we have not yet formed. Some of these are trivial and can be ignored (after all, we only have so much time); but others may be important issue which we should form opinions on.

Another class of defects are "point defects" – small isolated errors in the crystal matrix. For instance when a stray atom of sulfur or silicon gets incorporated into the carbon matrix of a diamond. We too tend to accumulate small isolated errors in our thinking. Consider a man who is otherwise rational in his behavior; but gets nervous when asked to sit in row 13 or take room 13 in a motel. An isolated contamination of superstition has found its way into his view of the world. The good news is that such minor errors are often easy to remove from people's thinking.

Yet another class of crystal defects a line defects. These are places where a small error has been propagated down of whole row of atoms within an otherwise well-formed crystal. A normal crystal might have one row of molecules connect with another row of molecules directly across from it; but in a line defect those molecules might have been bent out of shape and instead connected with molecules diagonally across. These are essentially flaws within the structure of the crystal itself. We too often find ourselves with flaws in out thinking on some subject. We might for instance form some perfectly logical opinions on politics only to discover an inconsistency in our logic where we used one standard in one case and a different standard in another. To line things up, we must choose a single standard and apply it to all situations.

A final class of crystal defects a planar defects. These commonly occur when two crystals begin growing separately at slightly different angles and then meet. Such misaligned crystals never solidly connect and will always serve as a weakness in the overall structure. People likewise have a tendency to compartmentalize their thinking – forming collections of opinions that are specific to a context or subject matter but are separate in their minds from their thinking in another context or subject. A person might have one set of moral principles at home and another at work. Both may be logical and internally consistent; but not consistent with each other. A person may have a well though out set of political views and a well thought out set of religion views. Each, again, may be internally consistent; but are in fact inconsistent with each other. These are the hardest kinds of problems for people to deal with in their lives – both because the compartmentalization makes them easy to ignore and because fixing them often means making significant changes in their views on some subject.

I will admit I have had to face each of these in my own life. Thankfully, I have only faced "planar defects" in my thinking only three times that I can recall – the results were traumatic enough that I do recall each vividly. One of the things I have committed to myself is to face such issues head-on and not to hide from them.

Posted by Steven at 07:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

October 20, 2005

Freedom and Equality

I don't think there will be much debate were I to state that Freedom and Equality are two of the fundamental doctrines of that civil religion that is Americanism. They are principles that guide our civic discourse as much as Faith and Love guide the discourse among Christians. What may however provoke a reaction is my observation that these doctrines serve very different roles within the American society.

Freedom is that principle that we love to talk about. It is the concept we are most proud of and tell others of our freedoms at every opportunity. It is the cause for which we claim we to go to war. Freedom is the doctrine which we most want people to associate with being American. However, I claim that for all we as Americans like to talk about freedom, it is actually not the issue which motivates us as a nation.

Equality on the other hand is the cause for which Americans as a people will act with passion. The idea that some people are being given unfair advantage or are being singled out for disadvantage vs. other people is something which shakes our national hornets' nest. Whether it be civil rights for minorities, equal rights for women, or the oppression of some minority in a foreign country, equality is the banner to which we will flock enthusiastically.

We accept with minor grumbling if we are searched and prodded as we travel; as long as we all suffer the same indignities. But suggest that individuals are singled out because of their background and we object. We are complacent in dealing with countries that oppress their people, as long as everyone is oppressed equally; but show that some minority is being treated worse than others and we will take up arms. We love free enterprise, right up until someone's wealth gives them an advantage in court or politics.

I acknowledge that we as a nation we do prefer freedom, and all other things being equal (and I use that phrase intentionally) we try to preserve and establish it. I further acknowledge that there is a minority of Americans who are passionate about their defense of freedom. I merely observe that freedom alone (without the hint of inequality) has rarely served to capture the public imagination the way causes of inequality have.

Some may suggest that this is a new phenomenon – that we would not have had the civil rights movements in our memory if America had always been thus. To answer that, I simply provide a couple of quotes from Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" (published in 1835). In both quotes he is talking about "Anglo-America society"

I think that democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom; left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation of it with regret. But for equality their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, invincible; they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery. They will put up with poverty, servitude and barbarism, but they will not endure aristocracy.

and

There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which incites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom. Not that those nations whose social condition is democratic naturally despise liberty; on the contrary, they have an instinctive love of it. But liberty is not the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their idol: they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty, and if, they miss their aim, resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing can satisfy them without equality, and they would rather perish than loose it.

Someday I need to do a blog on de Tocqueville.

Posted by Steven at 04:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

August 07, 2005

The Spiders of Silicon Valley

Life in Silicon Valley is a series of trade-offs. You get beautiful weather most of the year; but occasionally the ground moves out from under you. You get to live with diverse people from around the world; but the local symphony shuts down due to lack of funding. It's all trade-offs.

When I lived back East, I remember having to constantly fend off flies and other flying pests; and I was only in Silicon Valley a couple of months when their stark absence became apparent to me. We do have some mosquitoes (the San Francisco Bay is ringed with tidal marshes that provide an excellent breeding ground); but they rarely make it far away from the Bay.

The reason for there being so few flying insects is the counter-weight to that virtue – spiders rule the bay area. They are everywhere. Look in any bush, and you find the interior festooned like cotton candy with hundred of webs. Flying insects just don't have a chance. There were spiders back east; but they were a minor problem – one you could control within your house if you were vigilant; but in Silicon Valley it is like holding back the tide.

Of course, there is irony here. The place where so much "web" technology has been developed was ruled by webs long before the sleepy orchards that were the original industry here became office towers.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

July 13, 2005

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)

June 19, 2005

An amusing linguistic point

So I was doing some Bible research (don't worry – this isn't another "faith" posting) – looking at some issues in the original Greek vs. English translation, and in the process stumbled across the following amusing point. Acts 19:19 talks about a bunch of people who had practiced magic who converted to Christianity and brought in their old magic books and burned them. Now the word translated "sorcery", "magic" or "curious arts" (depending on the translation you are looking at) is the Greek word "perierga" which is a compound of two Greek words: "peri", meaning "around" (from which we get words like periphery) and "ergon", meaning "work" (from which we get ergonomics). So the word translated "sorcery" or "magic" literally mean "work around". I just find it interesting to think of ancient magicians as hackers looking for work-around's for the laws of nature.

Posted by Steven at 10:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)