Category Archive: Introspection

Considered thoughts and opinions on a variety of subjects.

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.

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 12, 2008

Thinking

There's a bunch of ideas for blog posts that have been rolling around in my mind, unfortunately none of them have come to fruition for me to post today. A bunch of them are likely to end up as a long series that will run several months (not unlike the church series I did last year), occasionally interrupted by interesting life events.

While it may change form by the time I start posting it, the basic theme of the series is: "the first ten lessons I would teach if I were starting a new church". Essentially what are the core concepts I would want everyone to be on the same page on if I was starting something new.

Now I have a fairly clear idea of several of the later lessons and could write them now; but the first few are proving to be more challenging that I had expected. Part of the issue is that I am less certain these days of how to explain exactly what Jesus did on The Cross than I once was.

For almost all my Christian walk, I have been part of churches that taught "substitutionary atonement" – essentially that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins when he died on the cross; and I can explain the whole of the Bible based on that theological perspective. In fact, I wasn't even aware that there were other non-heretical points of view.

However, this past year I have come to appreciate that people like C. S. Lewis and the whole of the Eastern/Orthodox church have a different way to explain Jesus' work on The Cross (referred to by some as "Christus Victor" theology). The effect is the same; but the emphasis is different, sometimes in subtle but perhaps important ways.

I am therefore loath to write up a description of the meaning of The Cross (which strikes me to be something I would want to establish early) until I either resolve this or have some way to explain things that provides a bridge between "substitutionary atonement" and "Christus Victor" (which is what I'd really like to do).

Anyway, since I had no post today, I thought I'd at least explain why I have no post today, and thus create a post.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink

November 05, 2008

Change. . .

. . . in this case is good.

This year, early on, the presidential race was a tough decision for me. I actually have a great deal of respect for Senator McCain. He is someone who has shown a willingness to do the right thing even when it is not politically expedient. Unfortunately, my respect for 2008 Candidate McCain waned over the course of the campaign. The John McCain that ran in 2000 (the one who created the “straight talk express”) I would have voted for easily, no question; but as time went on I started to see more and more that the McCain who was running this year was a different person. It started to become clear to me that to win the Republican nomination, he had to compromise in too many ways to be the kind of man I would vote for.

The last straw for me was the selection of Governor Palin as his running mate. Presidents don’t personally make the majority of the decisions of their administration. Most of what any “President” does is actually done by their appointees, so one of the most important things to look at in any candidate is the kinds of people they surround themselves with. The selection of Governor Palin showed me that there was just too much of a risk that he would end up surrounded with more of the same kinds of people who surrounded George W. Bush, and I do not believe the United States can afford four more years of that.

And to be clear, I am not knocking Sarah Palin as a person. Were she a member of the church I go to (which is not inconceivable since I’ve attended churches similar to the one she goes to in Wasilla), I would probably get along with her quite well. But as a candidate, she stands for what I think are the worst elements of the current Republican Party.

And that is a sad thing for me to stay. I have been a registered Republican for most of the 30 years in which I have been eligible to vote; but the party has drifted too far away from the principles I had admired in it in the past for me to stay with the party any longer. I have no intention of becoming a Democrat – there is too much they stand for that I do not agree with – but I can no longer consider myself a Republican either. This election was not only a major transition for our nation; but also for me personally.

I’ve said a lot about why I couldn’t bring myself to vote for McCain. Lest you think my decision was only a “vote against” and not a “vote for”, let me say that I greatly admire Obama as a speaker. We have not had an orator in the oval office like him in many years. Now that may seem like a small thing; but his ability to inspire, to motivate, to encourage will serve our ailing, divided nation well over the next four years. Perhaps what we need most today is someone who can remind us all of the Dream that is America; and Obama may well be the best person to do that.

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

June 13, 2008

Political Philosophical Musings, Informed Consent

As with my previous post, this is a collection of questions, not answers.

One consistent feature that has been a part of all my attempts at political philosophy has been some variation on the principle of "informed consent". I believe in any successful society, people need to be able to make their decisions based on accurate information. In commerce, the market is not really free if decisions are being made based on misinformation. The question then becomes, what role does government play in ensuring the accurate distribution of information?

The simplest answer is "none" – that the market will naturally exclude individuals who develop a reputation for deceitfulness. The problem is that many other individuals will be hurt before such a reputation is established. So I have always believed that at a minimum the government should have the right and responsibility to prosecute and punish those who are guilty of misrepresenting facts in the marketplace. Where things get interesting is evaluating if that is enough.

To answer that, one must first consider what other levels of involvement are possible. If we start with the principle of Honesty - "everything you say must be true", then the next step might be "and you must say everything you know" – i.e. the principle of "Full Disclosure". Should the government have the right and responsibility to prosecute and punish individual who stay silent on disadvantageous facts that they known? The next step after Full Disclosure might be Due Diligence – if you are required to expose all of the facts you have, how much effort are you required to invest in determining those facts for yourself? Can you simply not determine if something is safe and therefore be allowed to say nothing about its safety?

When I think about these questions, I often consider examples from two domains: pharmaceuticals and consumer products. Drug companies today are required to go through extensive trials to determine if their products are "both safe and effective". Furthermore they are required to provide to the consumer extensive details on possible side effects of taking the drug. What would society be like if this was not the case? What if the rule was Full Disclosure; but not Due Diligence? What if companies could market drugs without extensive testing as long as they were up-front about how much testing was done and what the outcomes were? I could imagine some kind of standard label (like a nutrition label) that explained how many people were tested, over what period of time were they observed, and what the outcomes were, with separate statistics for testing on adults, children, and pregnant women.

Now clearly this would require a great deal more effort on the parts of doctors and patients to inform themselves. Personally, I would be hesitant to take a drug that had only been tested on ten people last week, and nine of them actually lived! On the other hand, useful drugs might well be available sooner in such an environment and at a lower cost. Is the public interest better served by something like this, or our current model? I don't know; but the non-obviousness makes it an interesting question.

I will however say that taking this to the next step – Honesty but no Full Disclosure sounds like bad public policy. If a drug company that knows of a bad side effect is allowed to not disclose it, I can see no public benefit to that. So in my own political musings I find myself thinking that the role of government lies someplace between ensuring Full Disclosure and Due Diligence from participants in the marketplace.

Another factor in this is the availability of independent watchdogs. I have long been a member of Consumer's Union (the publishers of Consumer Reports). While the criteria they use to judge products is not always the criteria I would use, I have always respected how vigorously they maintain their independence and objectivity. Likewise Underwriters Laboratories has played a useful role in the marketplace. Given the value provided by such independent non-governmental institutions, can the role of the government be reduced? Which is more useful to the public – having the government ensure that some product is safe or having one or more independent parties that the consumer could go to in order to determine the safety of products? In the later case, the consumer has a choice in which they trust and how much effort (and perhaps money) they put into finding out.

That is both an advantage and disadvantage - an advantage because the quality of testing may well be superior because if such organizations loose consumer confidence they have nothing, so they are likely to try hard to maintain that confidence; a disadvantage because not all consumers will avail themselves of such resources. So what importance is there in protecting people who do not value protecting themselves? This becomes more complex if the independent watchdog requires payment to access their results. So the question remains – if you assume the existence of such independent testing organizations, does that effect what should be expected of the government?

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

June 11, 2008

Political Philosophical Musings, Property Rights

This post has no answers, just questions I am asking myself in my quest for a consistent political philosophy. Where I'd like to end up is with a small set of clear principles from which my political philosophy is derived; but the complexity of the real world has thwarted all such efforts.

Take this hallmark of Libertarian philosophy – an individual should be able to do whatever they'd like with their own private property as long as it doesn't prevent someone else from doing what they'd like with their property. Sounds obvious; but the details are devilish.

Now consider this scenario – an individual buys a tract of forested land. They then want to cut down all of the trees and burn them to heat their house. Sounds fair. However, having done so, they not only reduce the ability of the planet to absorb carbon dioxide; but they have also release addition C02 into the atmosphere. There are good arguments to say that this has a definite effect on everyone else on the planet and carried to an extreme, will certainly affect other people's abilities to do what they want with their private property. Many people are concerned with the inhabitants of the Amazon rainforest doing this very thing. The issue is that none of us are as isolated from each other as we would like to think we are. Even mundane actions can have consequences on those around us.

But what's the alternative? Government intervention in every action we take to ensure that we are not interfering with each other? That doesn’t sounds like a practical solution either.

Now take this one step further. I believe most political philosophers do not adequately take into account the time dimension in their consideration. Is it good enough to say our actions must not ill effect those around us today, or should we take into account the impact our actions will make on those who come after us? Is it acceptable to allow someone to use their private property in a way that does not impede those alive today; but has consequences beyond their lifetime? I may own something today; but assuming that I will eventually die, that property will eventually be someone else's. Should my impact on their ability to use "their property" (which is mine now) be taken into account? Do I have the right to destroy something and thereby deny my successors the right to use it?

An interesting variation on this theme is the allocation of finite resources. Free markets are excellent means for determining the value of something, as long as everyone with an interest in the commodity have the ability to bid on them. But that is often not the case with expendable resources since those who might use those resources in the future have no natural voice in today's market.

Consider fossil fuels – the market may in fact correctly determine their value to those who want to use them today. But what would the value of a barrel of oil be to someone alive a thousand years from now when, one might assume, all fossil fuels have been used up? If the laws of supply and demand apply, does the true value of any finite consumable resource tend towards infinity when considered over a long enough period of time? Of course, in the future we may well have perfected synthetic or renewable alternatives to fossil fuels, and their value may instead approach zero. So how do you take this into account?

A thought experiment I often consider when pondering these things is how to manage a generation space ship (one that travels between the stars at slower than the speed of light and therefore takes generations to get anywhere). The ship is sent out with a finite supply of everything. They may be able to replenish some supplies (minerals for instance) when they reach their destination; but until then, they have a finite quality of everything. How then do you set up an economy that takes into account the entire voyage? What form of government would be effective on such a voyage? And as the assumed size of the spaceship grows, is that scenario really any different from what we face on earth today?

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

February 12, 2008

Unchallenged Thought

Liam Kinnon had a wonderful post on his blog. I love the first paragraph:

Thinking is only thinking if it’s challenged, only then is it a verb. Unchallenged thinking is only a thought and that, left unchallenged, is prejudice. If you enter a conversation and there is no chance of anyone changing their perspectives it is a pointless exercise.

Now back to your regularly scheduled blog post:

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

January 23, 2008

Decision 2008

Days are ticking down to the California primaries and I am working to make my final decision on who I am going to vote for. As a preliminary for that I have been thinking this week about what issues are most important to me for the next 4 years. So here’s what I am looking for the next president to deal with (in rough priority order, most to least important to me).

Integrity

I want someone who has integrity in their position. I don’t want someone who will tell me what I want to know to get elected and then do whatever they want when they are in office. All of the rest of the issues don’t matter if the candidate isn’t honest about where they really stand. (Yeah, that eliminates most of them from the start).

The Deficit

I know there are people around the world who are looking for ways to hurt America and Americans; but in my opinion our growing national debt and the amount of that debt that is held by foreign investors is the biggest threat to America’s security and sovereignty. Unless we can balance the budget, pay down the debt, and somehow fund the various entitlements we have established; America’s peace and prosperity are heading to a brick wall even if we can somehow reign in terrorists and rogue states.

A Balance between National Security and Personal Liberty

While we need to invest vastly more in intelligence gathering to identify and address threats to the USA, we must be careful to not sacrifice what makes America worth defending in the process. Personal liberties of US citizens (at least) must be defended - we must find ways to make ourselves secure without violating those principles. I am looking for a president who opposes the Patriot Act and the Real ID act; but at the same time is willing to invest heavily in intelligence gathering around the world.

A More Moderate Foreign Policy

We need to back away from threatening to attack everyone who doesn’t like us; because by doing so we are simply increasing the number of countries that feel that way. I still support our intervention in Afghanistan – I only wish we had invested more in finishing the job there and not gone on to attack Iraq. Unfortunately, we did attack Iraq and so we have some responsibility to try and clean up the mess we created; but the next president better be one that will be more careful about the use of military force. If we are going to attack, we need to be sure that we will get our money’s worth in increased security (as opposed to spending billions and leaving us less secure).

Unfortunately, I don’t think there are any candidates that meet my criteria; so I’ll have to compromise (as usual); but at least I know what I am compromising on.

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

January 08, 2008

Freedom Of, Freedom From

I’ve written about this before; but it remains the largest gap in my personal political theory and it concerns me since I can’t be sure that the rest of my views are consistent without coming to some conclusion on this. Fundamentally, I believe that governments have a responsibility to ensure personal freedoms. Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. As a Christian, my faith imposes additional limits on my own behavior; but I do not think that it is the government’s role to enforce such limits in other people who do not share my beliefs.

Now in terms of political theory the concept of “consenting adults” seems fairly clear to me. Where this gets interesting is when things move out of “the privacy of their own homes”. What should people be allowed to do in public? What happens when someone’s freedom to do something encounters someone else’s freedom to not be exposed to something? And, more critically, when does it become a government’s role to enforce any limits on such interactions? I have been thinking about this question for years and still have no model that consistently gives the answers I’d expect – I always seem to be able to come up with scenarios that produce undesirable results.

To make this more concrete, here are some of the kinds of scenarios I have been looking at:

- Does someone have a right to walk down a typical street (perhaps with their children) and not see people engaged in sexual intercourse in public?

- Does a Muslim man have a right to walk down a typical street and not see women with their hair, arms, or legs uncovered?

- Does an atheist have the right to walk down a typical street in December and not be exposed to Christmas decorations and greetings?

- Does a voting citizen have the right to not be exposed to political views they do not agree with?

I’ve come up with a lot of these scenarios over these years (many more than I can list here). I know what answer’s I’d like to get for each of them and the degree to which I think the government should be involved in enforcing things; but I have yet to come up with a model – a set of simple guiding principles - that consistently gives the answers I want. Until I have such a model my concern is that, perhaps, my fundamental perspective on freedom may be internally inconsistent and therefore flawed.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

January 02, 2008

Science Fiction vs. Fantasy

One of the easiest arguments to instigate at WorldCon (the World Science Fiction Convention) is the question: “How do you distinguish between Science Fiction vs. Fantasy?” Most book stores don’t even bother making the distinction – lumping all of the books together in one section. Is the distinction even useful or meaningful? Having read several Neil Gaiman “fantasy” stories last week, I started thinking of this question in the context of why I enjoy Neil’s work and not a lot of other modern fantasy.

The classic definitions that most people use follow the form that Arthur C. Clarke employs: “Science fiction is something that could happen – but usually you wouldn’t want it to. Fantasy is something that couldn’t happen – though you often wish it would.” The operative part of that definition being that if a story could in theory happen at some point in the future (or have happened at some point in the past), then it is science fiction because it is grounded in real-world science. If the story could not possibly happen because it violates some law of nature, then it is fantasy.

The problem with that definition is that it classifies almost everything as “fantasy”. Have a story about space ships traveling between stars faster than the speed of light? Fantasy (physics says it can’t happen). Teleportation? Fantasy. Time Travel? Probably Fantasy. In fact most of the classic “Sci Fi” tropes are all now known to be physically impossible, so you’d have to classify all of those stories as Fantasy. What’s more, this definition means that many stories are one scientific discovery away from being reclassified. There are stories that would have been determined to be Science Fiction when they were written; but new science has since proved them to be impossible. Likewise someone could always discover a new level of physics that enables one of these “impossibilities” under certain conditions. Not a very useful definition in my opinion.

All this led me to take a different approach. I started to think about the Science Fiction and Fantasy stories I really liked – what made “good” SciFi vs. what made “good” fantasy. I came up with a different definition, one that actually capitalizes on the other part of Clarke’s definition – the “you wouldn’t want it to”/“wish it would” part.

It is often said that “Science Fiction is the Literature of ideas”, and I think that cuts closer to the truth. Good Science Fiction makes the reader think. It asks questions. What would it be like if. . .? Would you still think that if. . .? What would happen if. . .? Science Fiction is written to engage the reader’s brain and to get them thinking about some issue. The actual science in the stories really only exists to help us suspend disbelief as we read. A story would not be effective at making us think if our first thoughts are always “that could never happen”, so enough of an explanation need to be given to get us past that and on to the real issues presented.

Then what about Fantasy? The fantasy stories I like the most are those that engage my heart. They make me feel something – hope, joy, fear, wonder, compassion, and so on. This is why fantasy stories can just use explanations like “it’s magic” because what you think about the story isn’t important. What matters is how it makes you feel. It doesn’t ask how you feel about something, it makes you feel something.

So to me, Science Fiction is Literature of the Mind. It uses artificial scenarios to make the reader think about something. Fantasy is Literature of the Heart. It uses artificial scenarios to make the reader feel something.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

May 02, 2006

A political thought experiment

I start with an observation: governments today do not rule people, they rule territory. A nation does not govern its citizens; it governs what takes place within its boundaries by citizens and non-citizens alike, and likewise does not govern what its citizens do while not within that geography. There are places in the world whose economy is entirely based on the fact that people can go there and do things which are illegal for them to do "at home".

I do not point this out because I see it as inherently bad; but it does leave me wondering if there are alternatives, and if there are alternatives, what are their advantages and disadvantages. Both Cory Doctorow and Neal Stephenson have written stories where nations are defined by people, not by territory. A person is a part of some group and is subject to the laws of that group no matter where they travel. The complications come when people from different "tribes" interact in ways which may be legal to one and not to another. Is there a way to resolve such disagreements that is both practical and beneficial?

Note, I am not suggesting that a transition from what we have today to something like this could be accomplished. The current model is too well ingrained in our culture to make such a change. As a SciFi fan, I tend to think of this in the context of the formation of an interstellar alliance between various "alien" species. This also eliminates the assumptions that can be built on the commonality that we are all human and therefore certain laws can be assumed as "universal".

So here's the thought experiment I pose to myself from time to time. A group of alien societies (including, if you like, the human race) come together to form an alliance for the purpose of trade, information exchange, and common defense. Each species is assumed to remain self-governing; but some concessions must be made to make travel to other worlds safe and practical. There needs to be some set of rules that ensure that a being traveling to another world will neither be subjected to unnecessary risks nor unnecessary legal entanglements. The more research and preparation required to safely travel, the fewer beings will travel and the value of the alliance will be diminished.

The key question, I claim, is reduced to the following proposition. If a creature from culture A (the Actor), does something to a creature from culture S (the Subject), which is witnessed by individuals from culture O (the Observer) (as well, obviously, by A and S) while traveling on a world governed by creatures of culture L (the Location) – how do you decide if the activity is legal? Today, in the real world, the answer is that culture L almost always makes that determination. But is that the only consistent solution? And what are the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives?

Consider our real world solution to this problem, does it really make sense if the activity is legal in cultures A, S and O, for it to be illegal for them do it just because they happen to be across some border (keeping in mind that as formulated, the only witnesses are those who also consider it legal)? Or if it is illegal in cultures A, S and O, it is really in the interest of the greater good for it to suddenly become legal when you cross the border? Whatever disadvantages may exist in other solution, it would be hard to argue that our current model is without flaws.

When thinking about this, keep in mind it is being proposed in the context of alien societies. So possibilities like a given activity being required by one culture's law and forbidden by another's should be taken into account. In fact very little can be assumed in terms of commonality between cultures.

By the way, I originally added culture O to the mix (the "observer" culture) to take into account the fact that most cultures have some form of censorship – things which it believe people should not be exposed to – and I wanted to take that into consideration as well. I discovered that it actually helped clarify some of my own ideas, and simplified my answers significantly.

Anyway, I'll share my own thinking in a later post, and then eventually extend that to what it would mean to have governments of people not land.

Posted by Steven at 07:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

April 21, 2006

The beginning of happiness

All the time I hear people making statements like "I'd be happy if only she would...", or "I'd be happy if only he wouldn’t...", or "If my employer would only...", or "If the government would only..." Of course, few of these people end up achieving the happiness they seek – the world never quite gets around to changing in the ways they want. Which leads me to the point of this essay – my observation is that the road to happiness starts the day a person begins to assume that no one else is ever going to change in ways they want.

Note, I am not saying that people don't change. We are all in the process of transformation from who we were to who we will become; but those occasions when we change in ways that meet someone else's desires are unpredictable. It happens; but betting your happiness on it is a long shot that is far more likely to leave you frustrated.

Nor am I saying that we should not communicate to others how we would like them to change. Whatever the odds are of them changing, at least for those who care about us those odds can be improved by better communication. However, asking someone to do something is very different from assuming they will do it, and my admonition is to plan your life as if they won't.

So what does that leave?

As soon as you discard the hope that other people will change to make you happy, what is left is the question of what can you do to be happy given that everyone else will stay the same (or at least will not change in the ways you want). For those who really "get it", this can be a very liberating realization because it means that we are ultimately responsible for our own happiness.

A very simplistic application of this idea says that if you are in a relationship where you will never be happy unless the other person changes, then perhaps it is time to get out of that relationship and find a new one. There is no doubt in my mind that there are occasions where this is exactly the correct response. However, real life is often more complicated than that. You can in fact view ending one relationship and starting a new one as the ultimate form of getting your partner to change how they behave - by replacing them with someone else with different behaviors. But this has all the same problems as trying to change your old partner – a person's ability to find and attract a partner whose behavior is exactly what you want is as uncertain as trying to change someone. If your happiness depends on that, it is at great risk.

Put another way, replacing your partner only works if the new partner does in fact provide a context in which you can be happy; but what if they don't? What if in fact there is no one you can change your partner to be with whom you can be happy? What if the issue is not with your partner, but with your expectations of them? This principle does not just apply to personal relationships; but to all aspects of life that affect our happiness. Changing jobs, churches, friend, homes, cars, even what lane you are driving in can only make you happier if there exists real-world situations with which you can be happy.

Which bring me to the second step to being happy. While we cannot rely on other people changing to please us, we can in fact work to change ourselves. We should all then be diligent in our self-improvement to strive towards the goal of maximizing the volume and variety of situations within which we can be happy.

The key then is to look closely at why we are unhappy in various situations. It is easy to look at a situation and say, "I'm unhappy because they are being rude"; but why does their rudeness affect our happiness? What real harm is the tone of their voice and their choice of words doing? "But they are putting me down!" Yes, but what does it matter what they say about you? Or even what they think of you? What value do you place on their opinions? If your happiness depends on someone else changing their opinion of you, then you are back at step one.

The reality is that we all carry with us a lifetime’s worth of personal "baggage" and most of our unhappiness comes from when other people trip over our baggage, not from real harm to our person. Children may chant, "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"; but most people are in fact sufficiently insecure in their own identity that words do in fact hurt. When we understand better who we are and are secure in that identity, then the ability for situations and other people to make us unhappy is reduced.

Having done that, what remains are situations that are truly harmful to us, or where we allow ourselves to be vulnerable to someone who is not disserving of our trust. In both cases, finding alternatives is much easier than finding situations where our copious baggage will not get in the way. Once you have dealt with your baggage and are still unhappy, that is the time to consider changing your environment.

Now I am not saying that someone who does these two steps will be happy. Happiness is far more complicated than that. I only claim that these steps are the beginning of happiness – that they are necessary to the process, not sufficient to complete it.

Posted by Steven at 09:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

March 29, 2006

Power and unintended consequences

Everyone has some set of ideas in their head for “how the world should work”. These range from opinions on deep moral issues governing how people should behave to practical matters like store return policies to mundane things like how words should be pronounced. Some of these ideas are informed by our religious or philosophical views. Some are informed by our sense of logic and efficiency. And some, whether we admit it or not, are informed by self interest (enlightened or otherwise). The result is that our separate visions for the “ideal world” are all different. Common ground can be found between groups of people; but differences always exist. This is a problem for governments that consider themselves benevolent because there is no one set of policies which will satisfy everyone.

What’s more, our natural tendency is that to the extent to which we have control of our environment, we try to order it to conform to how we think things should be. This is often not a matter of conscious plotting and conspiracy, human nature leads us to do it subconsciously. The manager who is a morning person schedules key meetings in the morning. They do so without the intent to “make” everyone else morning people, they just act in accordance with their own internal view of how thing should work. It takes an individual with extraordinary self awareness and restraint to avoid using their opportunities to reshape their environment in this way.

Thus giving an individual power often has unexpected consequences as they consciously or subconsciously take the opportunity presented by that power to reorder the world around them. Thus giving someone power almost always results in unintended and unexpected consequences.

Lord Acton is noted as saying “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely”; but I think that is a misrepresentation of the true scope of the problem. It is certainly true that to the extent to which an individual’s view of how the world should work is driven by self interest; that given power, they will use that power for their self interest. However, in my observation it is just as likely that an individual’s view of how the world should work is driven by religious or moral opinions and that they will use that power for what they at least would view as the general good. They may not do this as a deliberate, conscious act; but rather their natural tendency to want to see the world be a certain way will lead them to actions which have that effect. The problem of course is that only a minority of people will agree that the result of these actions is in fact a better world.

It is for this reason that we must be very careful what power we give to the government. The agents of any government are likely to be a diverse collection of individuals whose ideal visions of the world will reflect that diversity. Given the opportunity presented by power, most will lack the self awareness and restraint to avoid using that power to make the world conform (to the extent their power allows them) to their vision. It does not take conspiracy or even deliberate intent for this to happen, just human nature. The result is that giving power to governments always results in unintended and unexpected uses of that power.

Give government the power to detain people without due process, and people will be detained for reasons other than what you intend. Give government the power to examine private communications and communication will be examined for reasons other than what you intend. Often these reasons will be well meaning, intended for what the agent of the government sees as the general good; but there will always be agents whose sense of the common good is different from the view of the majority of citizens and there will always be agents whose view of how the world should be is driven, at least in part, by self interest.

This effect can be limited by constraining the power and how it can be used, but it can never be eliminated entirely. Given the nature of the problem, the best possible constraint is to require several diverse people to agree when power is used. Given that their opinions on how the world should work are unlikely to be the same, the chance of agreement to use power in an unexpected way is small. This is why rules like judicial review and writs of habeas corpus are useful limits on government and dangerous when waved.

It is for this reason that the current situation in the US concerns me. Too much power is being given to the government with too few checks and balances. It is inevitable that this power will be misused – not as part of some vast conspiracy, but by individuals who subconsciously see the opportunity to make the world closer to what they think it should be, whether for reasons they would see (if they were conscious of what they were doing) as the common good, or personal interest. It is in my opinion a dangerous state of affairs.

Posted by Steven at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 26, 2006

Green Libertarian

I am a software architect. One side effect of the mindset that has aided me in that career is that I tend to look at everything around me as a source of algorithms that I might use on the computer. For instance, evolution by selection (natural, intelligent, or otherwise) has proven to be a very powerful technique for solving certain kinds of computer problems. The application of evolution to software development is known as using "genetic algorithms" and has been used to design bridges and predict the stock market. Likewise, free market economies have been shown to be an efficient and powerful means to make many kinds of decisions, some completely unrelated to buying and selling goods. For instance, the Iowa Electronic Markets (IEM) has done a better job at predicting election outcomes than any polling organization by operating a "stock exchange" in which people invest in "candidate futures".

The catch however is to use evolution or a free market to solve a specific problem, you need to carefully construct the situation to essentially "ask the right question" of the technique. There is an infamous example when computer scientists were first dabbling with genetic algorithms where they thought they had managed to "breed" a very fast sorting algorithm. The problem was that the test cases they had used to determine the "fitness" of the algorithms (as in "survival of the fittest") where not as random as they thought, and rather than breeding a sorting algorithm, they only managed to breed an algorithm that knew how to re-order their specific test cases.

Which, believe it or not, leads me to my political philosophy.

I am what I like to think of as a "Green Libertarian". To start with, I believe that there are relatively few things which governments can do for people that they can not do better for themselves. One reason I believe that is that I also believe that a free market is a very efficient tool for finding sets of solutions that meet people's needs. It allows many possible solutions to be tried and rewards those solutions that are successful.

As a case in point I believe in school choice. I believe having a single government subsidized solution (as is the case in most communities in the USA) interferes with the proper working of the free market and results in a substandard education for all but those who are wealthy enough to afford other opportunities. I do appreciate the complexities of alternative solutions and would be willing to live with certain safeguards; but fundamentally, making sure everyone has viable (affordable) choices on where to send their children to school is in my opinion the best way to ensure a quality education for everyone because this is exactly the kind of problem free markets are good at solving. Even a very limited scheme – for instance saying: to get government money you can't select students based on ability (unfair because government schools have to accept everyone), you can't require additional money from the parents if you accept government money (again unfair), and students who are being funded by the government can't be required to attend religious instruction (avoids constitutional issues that exist in some people's minds) – even a limited scheme like that would almost certainly provide superior solutions.

So far, my position would seem to be well aligned with the Libertarian Party. As a starting point, I think the Libertarian Party has some very good ideas. Where I diverge from them is that I see many more problems than they for which the free market is not a good solution. Fundamentally, a free market works as long as all those affected by a decision are able to participate in that market. To the extent to which effected people have no voice in the market, the solution will be biased towards those who have a voice, and thus will be suboptimal.

The clearest example of this to me is the Libertarian Party's positions on ecology. While the Libertarian Party's stance has mellowed over the years (I remember the original Libertarian Manifesto making very clear that a person's right to do whatever they want with their own property included the right to dump toxic waste there if they chose), it remains the case that the Libertarian Party's views on ecology are biased towards allowing current free markets resolve these issue. I believe such solutions are fundamentally flawed because the nature of ecological issues makes it such that the majority of people who will be affected by these decisions are not yet born, and so no current free market will ever be able to find optimal and efficient solutions. I have seen proposals that try to artificially impose "future costs" into the market; but their very artificiality means that you are no longer gaining the benefits of the free market.

Ecology is not the only case where I think the Libertarian Party is not critical enough of what problems a free market can solve; but it is the most obvious. The bottom line to me is that you really need to understand why free markets work and then evaluate each kind of decision to determine if they can be trusted to the market or some other solution is required. As a result, my own political philosophy tends to be a kind of amalgam of Libertarian politics and those espoused by the Green Party. Hence, I am a Green Libertarian. This is already a super-sized post, so I think I'll stop here.

Posted by Steven at 06:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

November 15, 2005

Sharing space

I am currently reading Lynne Truss' book "Talk to the Hand" which is her take on manners in the same sense that "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves" was her take on punctuation. It is getting me thinking about the nature of civility in society.

I am intentionally making a distinction here between "civility" and "etiquette" (a point Truss also makes, although with different terms). I am not so much concerned with the arbitrary rules a society forms (most often to help distinguish between those who are "inside" and those who are "outside"). I don't care what fork people use when they are foolishly presented with more than one, or whether elbows belong on tables or feet upon sofas.

There are however other issues which concern me greatly – these relate to what I will refer to as "civility". I chose that word because of its relationship to the Latin word civicus "of the city, belonging to the city, citizenship". My starting point is simple – as soon as people began to gather together into communities (they became "civilized" in the literal sense), it was realized that as long as people needed to share space, they needed to yield some of their individual liberties while operating in those shared spaces lest the exercise of their freedoms impinge on someone else's freedom. Civility and thus civilization itself is then founded on a negotiation regarding what limits exist on what one can do in public that one might be quite free to do in private.

My concern here is not with the details of such negotiation, or the outcome; but the recognition that it exists at all. My observation is that in the United States at least, the move to individuality and individual freedom has led many people here to abandon the need to consider that one's public behavior might need to be at all different from ones private behavior. In short, I am concerned that America is becoming less civilized, and that this will eventually result in dire consequences.

The signs of this are all over. Boom-box cars that broadcast the driver's favorite tunes at such volume that people on the next block can hear them. People talking loudly on their cell phones in the most inconvenient places. Drivers who merge and change lanes without regard to who else might be on the road. Couples engaged in rather intimate behavior on subway trains. I could go on; but my point is not to catalog the behaviors which I feel should be forbidden; but rather to ask what is the root of such behavior? I believe the root is that people have stopped believing that they need to give up anything when sharing space with other people. To me, that means the end of civilization – people will not long be able to live with each other "in the city" if that is in fact the trend.

I think as long as people acknowledge the need to negotiate their behavior in public places, that there is hope. Individual rules may change, and I personally may not always be happy with the results; but part of any negotiation is recognizing that you won't always get everything you want.

The rules don't even need to be universal absolutes. In classic manners, the phrase "excuse me" was used initiate a renegotiation of the implied social contract. You want to do something that you realize pressed your freedom farther than expected into someone else's freedom, so you say "excuse me". This allowed the other person to acknowledge and accept your intrusion, or provide some kind of counter offer (including perhaps outright denial). My point is not to praise the specifics of this exchange (I am aware of other perfectly civilized cultures that handle it somewhat differently); but to make clear that true civility is not a fixed set of rules; but in fact a continuous negotiation one conducts with those around you – assuming of course that you see the need to do so at all.

Posted by Steven at 05:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

October 29, 2005

Where has the beauty of language gone?

I am not an ardent grammarian who measures the decline in language in double negatives and split infinitives. I have always believed that a language is what is spoken and understood, regardless of what those who sit in academic halls and national institutes may say. Language is the ultimate cultural artifact and is therefore the subject of constant evolution. Most people would be amazed at the elements of modern English which were considered scandalous degradations of the language in their day. So please do not mistake my meaning when I complain of decline of language, and think I am disturbed by mere rules being broken. My concern goes much deeper.

To me language is like a song, composed of both words and music, meaning and melody, one directed to the mind and the other to the heart; and if fitted together well, the combination communicates far more than either alone. But music is not required to accomplish this. Words, both spoken and written, have clear meaning which can be used to covey ideas; but language can be more than just meaning. There is meter, repetition, and rhymes of diverse kinds. There is cadence, alliteration, and patterns both overt and subtle. Words can be made to carry the reader gently along, or build to a climax that demands to be read. These tools are not part of the literal meaning of the text; but seduce us into becoming involved in what is being said – they provide a form of music that draws our hearts into the conversation.

It is a kind music I hear less and less often.

Consider the following statements:

"We have decided to go to the moon and more, because the difficulty of the challenge and the act of commitment will inspire us to excel".

Or

"The soldiers who fought here have already honored this location more than our speeches will."

The meanings of these statements are significant, and one could imagine people talking about the ideas expressed by them afterwards; but the words themselves are dead stones. I think most people, when talking about the subject, would simply rephrase such thoughts in their own words rather than taking the effort to quote these.

Now consider:

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

Or

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

I acknowledge that these statements might well become lost in the flood of words that each of us face each day; but they do communicate something that goes beyond the literal meaning of the sentences – something that touches us in ways that the first versions did not, something which would make our own rephrasing of these ideas appear as poor imitations in their shadow, something that calls out to repeat not just the ideas; but the words themselves, something which is missing from public discourse these days.

I have no illusions that quotable speech was common in years past. I am aware that before Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address, the great orator Edward Everett spoke for two hours and yet the world has little noted nor long remembered what Everett said. Yet outside of fiction, no one seems to care these days how things are said, only what is said; and thus the beauty of language is lost. I fear that Martin Luther King Jr. may prove to be America's last great orator, for I have seen no one today who even cares to pick up that mantle from where it fell, much less put it on.

I see this issue not just in politics and public speaking; but also in writing. There are books from the past which have become classics not just because their ideas were great; but because the way the ideas were expressed were equally as great. But where are such books now? Who (outside of fiction) is writing quotable books today? There is, as I have alluded to, those who write fiction who keep alive the flame of the beauty of language; but those who write non-fiction seem only to be concerned with getting their facts right.

I think this change has come about because we as a people no longer seek the beauty of language, no longer demand it. We have grown distrustful of eloquence, fearing that it serves as a mask for people's motives; but in that fear we have lost the ability to be moved by words, to be drawn skyward by phrases that ennoble us.

Because of our distrust of language, we have failed to renew the bonds of words which hold us together; bonds which must be re-forged in each generation. We may hold certain ideals in common; but as we change, we must find new ways to express those ideals – common phrases that tie us not to the past; but to each other.

While all this concerns me, I don't know what can be done. For my part I practice my craft - writing, and studying what has been written to understand its beauty – and I encourage others to look for the beauty in words.

Posted by Steven at 04:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

October 27, 2005

The limits of Science

In 1931 Kurt Gödel proposed his incomplete theorems. In essence he proved that there can be no consistent axiomatic system of logic that can prove all things which are true. Any such system of proof with either have some true statements which it can not prove to be true or it will incorrectly identify some false statements to be true. For the layperson, what this means is that it is provable that not everything is provable by pure logic.

Now I recognize that Gödel's methodology can not be applied to non-axiomatic systems such as "the scientific method"; but I remain convinced in my own mind that the concept applies. I believe that there are things which are true in the universe which can not be proven to be true using the scientific method (or any such method of proof). I'm not talking about technological limits where we physically can't perform the test; but conceptually there are true things which can simply not be reached using such a methodology.

The question is what to do about that.

First, I am sure there are some who would dispute the point - who would say that in fact there is no truth in the universe which can not be proven by science. As I do not have the equivalent of Gödel's proof to make my case, there is little I can say in response beyond the fact that, technically speaking, science can rarely "prove" anything with absolute certainty (as can be done with axiomatic logic) - in most cases there always remains some chance that some edge case will eventually be discovered where a theory falls down. Most of the time science simply takes 99.99% certainty and call it "proven" out of convenience.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that some thing can not be proven; but recommend the philosophy that we should all act as if all unproven statements were false. The motivation is that since some of those un-provable statements are in fact false, the safest assumption for everyone to assume that they all are. This is a consistent and logical philosophy, and I can understand anyone who chooses to adopt it; but in essence this is saying we should not take risks in life because we may fail. My personal opinion is that much of the joy in life comes when we are willing to take risks, and that a philosophy which says "avoid the possibility of being wrong" will often avoid happiness as well.

Third, while I have never heard anyone advocate it as a position, I have certainly seen people who act as if they believe that all propositions are true until proven false, and therefore act as if the unproven is true. They swallow every theory they hear under the guise that "you can't prove it wrong". This is in my opinion a foolish stance if for no other reason that much of what has resisted scientific proof is mutually contradictory - simple logic can show that not all if it can be true. To accept ideas with no critical thought guarantees some of what you believe is wrong.

Finally, I believe there is a middle way - for each of us, when science is unable to settle a matter to our satisfaction, to use our own best (and logical) judgment and decide, however imperfectly, which propositions are true. Doing this we must accept the risk that we will be wrong some of the time; but do so hoping that this risk will bring things into our lives that will enrich us.

In this process we can be guided by the principles of science even if we are not allowing ourselves to be absolutely ruled by them. While science may not be able to provide objective proof for all to see, we can at least seek our own subjective proofs based on our experience. We can ask ourselves: Is what I believe logically consistent? Are there other explanations I should consider? Where might the flaws in my evaluation lay? To delve into the realm of the unproven we need not abandon science, merely recognize its limits.

Posted by Steven at 05:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

October 26, 2005

The Cardinal Virtues of Science

While professionally I am an engineer, I've always liked to think of myself as a scientist. One reason I desire that moniker is that I consider science (in its pure, abstract form at least), to be a noble calling, worthy of honor and respect, guided by virtues which I strive to build in myself - humility and openness

I claim the core of true science is humility.

Science is all about questions - asking questions yourself and allowing others to ask questions of you. Science never assumes that things are beyond inquisition - it recognizes that there is always the possibility of error; and that the only way to reduce that possibility is to allow free and open discussion. Newton's theories of motion had passed centuries of scrutiny so that we were willing to start calling them laws; but we kept asking questions and eventually discovered problems that led to Einstein's theory of relativity.

The simplest raw form of the "scientific method" is to say "I think this is true - can anyone confirm of deny it?" Papers must pass peer review before being published. To be a true scientist is to be humble - willing to be challenged, questioned, tested; and most important, willing to be shown to be wrong. To be a true scientist, one must be humble

True science is also about openness.

To be questioned is to be exposed. A scientist must be willing to let all their data "hang out" for everyone to see. Errors can often be hidden in the most unlikely of places, and so it is incumbent on scientists to allow others to dig into every nook and cranny of their thinking, looking for the hidden assumption on which their theory or experiment was built. To conceal data, particularly data which might mitigate your claims is the great sin in science. Being wrong is not an issue - it is expected - but hiding even a hint that you may be wrong is a capital offense.

These are virtues to be extolled not just in the lab or lecture hall; but also in life. We should all strive for this kind of humility, this kind of openness.

Of course, all of this is an ideal. Real science is conducted by real people with all those faults that are common to humanity - pride, bias, anger, fear, and so on. There is a lot of bad science out there, driven by pride, secrecy, dogma (whether it be religious, political, or otherwise). The best we can all do is keep asking the questions, whether they are welcome or not.

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

October 17, 2005

Genius and Madness

This year, the book which has been most successful at keeping me thinking long after I finished reading it is definitely Jeff Hawkins' "On Intelligence". See here for my previous review.

The essence of Hawkins' theory is that the human brain is a very specific kind of pattern matching engine, and that all that we think of as "intelligence" is a byproduct of exactly how the brain goes about that task. An overly simplified version of his model is that the arrangement of cells in the brain is design to express things like "an X is an A and a B, followed by a C and a D", where A, B, C, D, and X can be anything - visual elements, sequences of sounds, abstract ideas, etc. The elegance of Hawkins' theory is that the same basic mechanism can be used for so many purposes.

A key piece of Hawkins' theory is that information flows both up and down the hierarchy of pattern matchers. In the abstract example above, the cells that identify "A's" signal up to the cells that represent "X is A+B then C+D". Those cells then signal down that they are expecting a "B". Now if there is no B, then nothing happens; but if the cells responsible for identifying "B's" had partially identified a "B", then the extra nudge from on-high that a "B" was expected might be enough to put the decision over the threshold to signal a "B". Then the "X" cells would signal down that they were now looking for a "C" and "D", and so on.

The point here is that the bidirectional communication allows for fuzzy matches - your brain might identify the first three notes of Beethoven's 5th Symphony; but the 4th note is slightly out of tune, yet you still hear the Symphony because the higher level pattern convinced the lower level pattern that the sound was a match even though it really wasn't.

To give a more complex example: I am a software engineer, so I have patterns in my head for algorithms like "binary search tree" and "hash table". I look at a problem and I see "this is the kind of problem that should be solved with a hash table." According to Hawkins this happens because I have cells in my head that represent the idea of "hash table" that match some set of complex criteria of characteristics of problems to be solved (represented by other cells). If I am a good engineer, those criteria will only trigger the "hash table" symbol if it is in fact the right solution. That process is however a negotiation between the levels of abstraction in my brain where the "hash table" symbol is constantly trying to encourage or discourage the lower level interpretation of things, depending on how well other parts of the puzzle match.

This fuzzy matching, according to Hawkins, is where most of what we think of as genius and creativity come from. Genius (in simple terms) is the ability to match patterns that to other people seem unrelated. To look at nature and see a solution to a software problem. To look at a boat on a curved river and see the solution to a mathematics problem. To look at a fisherman and see the solution to a philosophical problem. Those are the things that we call genius. In Hawkins' theory, this implies the ability to match patterns despite the imperfections in the stimulus - that the higher level pattern was able to convince the lower level patterns to signal match despite the fact that biology is not computer science, that rivers are not formula, and that fish are not emotions.

Which brings us at last to madness. We talk about people with various mental illnesses as seeing or hearing things that "aren't there". How might that occur if Hawkins' theory is correct? One possibility is that these people's illnesses at a biological level cause high level patterns to be more aggressive at signaling down (which, as I understand the theory, is possible since the cells that signal down use different neurotransmitters). In the example above, imagine if the "Beethoven's 5th Symphony" pattern started to signal down that it was expecting that 4th note even when the first three were not clearly signaled. The person might "hear" the symphony when in fact all that was coming in the ears was random noise. Their brains might well be matching patterns based on unrelated data.

But isn't that also what genius is? People have talked for ages about the fine line that separates genius and madness. Hawkins may well have proposed a theory that explains the connection. The only difference between a genius and madman is that the strange analogies generated by the brains of geniuses are useful, while those of a madman are not.

Posted by Steven at 05:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 14, 2005

Challenge vs. Adapt

We all face problems in our lives, some large, some small. Whether it is an unjust law, or a rude waiter, there are two broad approaches to addressing any problem – you can challenge the problem to try and make it go away, or you can adapt to the problem and find someway to get what you want within the limitations of the situation. It all comes down to who is going to change, the individual or the situation.

Neither approach is "right". There are situations in life that call out for change. These are often problems that effect many people and therefore expecting the people to all change is unreasonable. On the other hand there are situations that call out for individuals to adapt – whether it is because the situation can not be changed (for instance individuals learning to adapt to disabilities) or where the current situation is only a problem for a few and changing to accommodate them will discomfort a much greater number. Of course, most real problems fall in between – where the proper resolution isn't obvious and it is up to us as individuals to make a judgment call whether to fight the situation or adapt to it.

There have been social trends which bias people towards one solution or another. In the 60's and early 70's, the bias was to challenge – to fix the things that were broken in the world, whether they be big (prejudice, poverty) or small (dress codes, hair styles). In the late 70's and 80's, the bias was towards adaptation - self-improvement and learning how to use "the system" to one's advantage. I'm not entirely sure where the bias is today; but given the tendency for people to blame others for their problems, I think we may be back to a preference to challenge rather than adapt.

As an engineer, my personal bias has always been towards adapting. Engineering is all about being told "You have 8 rubber bands, 10 sheets of paper, 6 tooth picks, 3 feet of string, and an egg. Now build something that will let you drop the egg without cracking". When an engineer is presented with such a problem they know asking for a sheet of foam rubber is not an option. Engineering is all about dealing with constraints – even if the only constraints are time or money. The first step in any engineering problem is understanding what you have to work with, and then you figure out how to solve the problem with what you have. Occasionally you can get away with challenging the constraints you are given; but an engineer who does that too often is not respected. Real respect comes from solving a problem under constraints that everyone else thinks are impossible.

My observation is that spending years being paid to find ways to adapt to constraints at work has inevitably had an effect on my personal life. When I run into problems, my first reaction is to find some way to work around them – to take the limitations presented to me as a given and then find a way to get what I want despise those limitations. The idea of challenging the rules, asking other people to change, comes slowly to me, if at all. If someone's a jerk, I assume they will always be a jerk and find a way to work around them. The idea of complaining about them doesn't occur to me.

I'm not saying this is right – there are almost certainly times when I should be challenging my environment instead of adapting to it. My comment is only that I think I have come to understand where my personal bias comes from. It's an "engineer thing".

Posted by Steven at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

August 29, 2005

Extrapolation of human nature

Philosophers, as a whole, look for the "universal truths" of the human condition. The problem is – how do you know when something really is universal, as opposed to just common among philosophers?

Consider the proposition: people have an innate desire to find meaning for their lives – to find some context (religion, family, nationalism, invention, whatever) greater than themselves which makes their own existence meaningful. This is a position taken by a great many philosophers, although the significance of that desire has been interpreted in a variety of ways.

My question is – how does one decide if this is in fact a universal?

Obviously the philosophers who have come to this conclusion feel such a need (otherwise they would provide their own disproof); and since more than one have taken this position (including some who view this as a bad thing), it is clearly not an isolated behavior. Let's say a philosopher talks to a great many people, and discovers that while most folks say "I've never really thought about it", those that have thought about it agree with the observation. Can one then extrapolate from those conversations that the desire to find meaning is a human universal?

Or….

….instead, have you discovered that there is a subset of the population who thinks about the human condition (philosophers by inclination if not occupation), and that this subset has an innate desire to find meaning for their lives; but that most people don't spend time thinking about such things and really don't care if their lives have meaning? How can you tell?

I have come to the conclusion that one is not ready to consider deeply the universals of the human condition until one understands our differences.

I believe it is clear that there are fundamental differences in how people respond to the world – that there are a great many things which are not universal. Many models have been developed to categorize people into "personality types" – the Four-Temperaments model, the Myer-Briggs model, the Enneagram model, etc. All of these models define ways in which people are different. While I believe the spectrum of human behavior is too complex to allow people to be put in nice neat boxes, I do think these models are useful for understanding the ways in which we differ and it is only by having a deep understanding of our differences that we can successfully sort out those things which are in fact universal.

I believe to jump ahead and start looking for universals without an appreciation of these differences is like looking for someone in a funhouse maze of mirrors – it is easy to get confused by all of the reflections.

Posted by Steven at 09:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

August 11, 2005

Modern Myths and Loss of Control

A couple days ago I blogged on what myth patterns may be starting to evolve in our modern society. I mentioned two story patterns that seem to be getting repeated: The Frankenstein myth (man loses control of technology) and the Reluctant Hero myth (someone is given great power and struggles with the responsibility that implies).

I've continued thinking about these and have an additional observation: I claim both of these myths are about loss of control.

In the Frankenstein case, this is obvious – someone builds some piece of technology and literally loses control of it. It reflects societies' concern that, thanks to technology, things are changing too fast for them. Life is becoming too complex too quickly and no one is in control.

I think the Reluctant Hero myth is related to this. Such myths start with an individual expecting to live a normal life. They know what to expect and therefore have some degree of control over their lives. Then, suddenly, their life is changed and they are expected to become "a hero". To the character, the expectations of being a hero mean they have lost control over their lives, and the story comes out of their struggle against this loss of control.

Based on demographics of TV show audiences, this kind of story tends to be particularly popular with young adults. Perhaps modern society no longer adequately prepares individuals for adulthood, and faced with the sudden expectations places on them when they enter "the real world", they find they can relate to such myths.

So, is "loss of control" the central theme of modern myths? This is too few data points to make such a claim; but it is an interesting point to consider. It is certainly a distinctly "modern" concept to worry about. In most ancient cultures there was never an assumption that an individual was ever in control to begin with, it was always fate or "the gods" who were in control. To tell stories about people losing control would never have occurred to someone in those cultures. Yet in modern society we believe we should be in control of our lives yet face a world in which we often aren't. So perhaps we look for myths that at least express that confusion, and at best provide some context for knowing how to deal with it.

Posted by Steven at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

August 09, 2005

Of Myths, Memes, and the Modern

Back in the days of oral tradition, a young man or woman might here a multitude of stories told as they were growing up, and were likely to even here the same story told many times. When such a child grew up to become a storyteller themselves (as parent, shaman, bard, whatever), they would tend to repeat the stories which most impressed them in their youth. The version they would tell would tend to be some amalgamation of the best parts of the various versions they had previously heard; together, perhaps, with a few embellishments of their own. Their embellishments to the story would be repeated if they impressed other story tellers, and would be forgotten if not. The result is good stories were repeated more often and tended to improve with age, becoming more suited to their audience with each cycle.

One could view this process as evolution – it has all of the elements: selection, mutation, even combination to speed the process. Thus you can view myths and folktales as highly evolved stories – ones well suited to the society (the "ecological niche") in which they grew. Just as you can look at an animal and discern some thing about the environment in which it lived (webbed feet might indicate that it spent significant time in water); you can also look at the stories that are successful in a society and ask question like: why were they successful? What does the fact of their success tell us about the society in which they grew?

By the way - this concept of "idea as evolving organism" has been given the term "meme" (a combination of memory and gene). Of course, the idea of a "meme" is itself a meme which I have now spread to you all, so it clearly is a successful one as it has managed to propagate itself to me and now to you.

Back to stories – if you accept the idea that myths and folktales are highly evolved stories for the culture in which they thrived, then you might ask – what stories are evolving for our present society? And therein lay the rub. The problem is that starting with Gutenberg, the nature of technology has tended to slow down the evolution of stories by freezing them in place. A story, once captured in a book, does not lend itself to modification. Consider urban legends. Once they were repeated verbally and therefore were subject to selection, modification, etc. and thereby tended to evolve. However with the internet, passing on such a story is merely a matter of a few clicks. Few people would even think to modify the story before forwarding it on; and because the process of forwarding it is so easy, much less selection occurs as to what is worthwhile.

And despite this, I claim that that certain myths have begun to evolve in the modern age. Each story may itself be frozen; but the idea of the story – the core meme – is available to be retold in a new story in a new way. So one can ask, what story ideas are often repeated in our society? And what do they tell us about our society.

As an example, consider the plot line: a scientist in search of knowledge to benefit people creates some new thing which the scientist then loses control of and instead of helping people is does them harm, usually killing the scientist in the end. This is the "Frankenstein myth"; but one which has been told many times in many ways (Michael Crichton has built a career of writing variation of this myth – Prey, Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain, The Terminal Man, etc). An interesting side note is to consider – if you could only present one version of the Frankenstein myth to someone, which version do you think best captures the essence of the myth?

Another I have identified is the reluctant hero – someone is given extraordinary abilities; but all they want is to live a normal life. Yet "with great power come great responsibility", and the story is about that struggle between responsibility and normalcy. Obviously I put Spider Man into this camp (along with a few other comic book heroes), as well as Buffy and "The Greatest American Hero" on TV. I find this particular one interesting because it is so clearly modern. No story with such reluctant heroes would have ever been deemed fit enough to survive in ancient cultures – individuals with power did not shirk from using them (counterexamples are welcome). So why do stories with reluctant heroes resonate enough now that they have been told many times?

Posted by Steven at 08:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

August 03, 2005

Linguistics

Long before Anne got her masters degree in linguistics, I loved the science of words. To put it into the standard formula for "thing Steve loves" – I am fascinated by the process of how sequences of symbols and sounds become translated into meaning.

One question I keep investigating – catching up on current thinking in the field as I am able – is: "what are the universals of language?" What concepts are common to all languages, and (conversely) what concepts are particular to specific languages. I'm currently reading a book ("The Atoms of Language" by Mark C. Baker) which tries to define all of the variations in the structures of human language into a small number of parameters. Individual "words" (or equivalent) vary greatly between languages; but how those linguistic elements are assembled to express thoughts have more limited variations (modifiers either come immediately before or immediately after the words they modify, etc.).

Even as a dilettante in linguistics, I quickly came up with some counter-examples to the theory presented by the book; but as a means to get me thinking on this topic again, the book was wonderful. In particularly the book gives some excellent examples of extremely "non English like" languages, which I always enjoy.

This fascination of mine is an old one. While in high school tried to design my own "artificial" language. The results were far too English-like for my tastes now – at the time I assumed far too many things were "universal" and were unaware of the alternatives. It is however somewhat embarrassing that, for the length and depth of my interest in linguistics, I have never actually learned a foreign language. I have always skimmed new languages, looking for interesting structures; but never diving in deep enough to be able to actually use another language.

I am also working to correct that omission. Anne and I bought the "Rosetta Stone" program for French-1, and I am slowly working my way through. This is a back-burner task, and I'm not sure if I will be able to give it the time it needs; but so far I have been making steady process through the lessons.

I also find myself linking about artificial languages again – perhaps I'll take another pass at my own language.

Posted by Steven at 09:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

July 28, 2005

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 12, 2005

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)

July 07, 2005

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 01, 2005

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)

June 30, 2005

Why do people bother?

As far back as I can recall into childhood, I believed in at least a generic God – someone who created the universe with some purpose. At Age 10, I made an explicit and intentional decision to become a Christian, and while I have certainly refined my definition what it means to be a Christian many times, there has never been a point at which I did not believe that there was a meaning and a purpose to the universe.

I'm thinking about that because with the movie of "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" having come out this year, I have been re-watching the original BBC TV show. Now for those who have only seen the movie (which has an unfortunate happy ending tagged on to it), the original British story was an exercise in pure, unadulterated nihilism. The whole point of "42" and all that was that the universe didn't have any meaning, and everyone one was just fooling themselves into thinking there was one.

I think this is best captured in the patter of the Master of Ceremonies at Milliways – the Restaurant at the End of the Universe (I'll note that the American movie ended before they got to Milliways). Here's a sample:

"Thank you ladies and gentlemen!" he cried, "thank you very much. Thank you so much."
"Ladies and gentlemen," he said, "The Universe as we know it has now been in existence for over one hundred and seventy thousand million billion years and will be ending in a little over half an hour. So, welcome one and all to Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe!"
"I am your host for tonight," he said, "my name is Max Quordlepleen and I've just come straight from the very very other end of time, where I've been hosting a show at the Big Bang Burger Bar - where I can tell you we had a very exciting evening ladies and gentlemen - and I will be with you right through this historic occasion, the End of History itself!"
"So, ladies and gentlemen," he breathed, "the candles are lit, the band plays softly, and as the force-shielded dome above us fades into transparency, revealing a dark and sullen sky hung heavy with the ancient light of livid swollen stars, I can see we're all in for a fabulous evening's apocalypse!"
Even the soft tootling of the band faded away as stunned shock descended on all those who had not seen this sight before.
A monstrous, grisly light poured in on them,
- a hideous light,
- a boiling, pestilential light,
- a light that would have disfigured hell.
The Universe was coming to an end.
For a few interminable seconds the Restaurant span silently through the raging void. Then Max spoke again.
"For those of you who ever hoped to see the light at the end of the tunnel," he said, "this is it."
"And as the photon storms gather in swirling crowds around us, preparing to tear apart the last of the red hot suns, I know you're all going to settle back and enjoy with me what I know we will find all an immensely exciting and terminal experience."
"Believe me, ladies and gentlemen," he said, "there's nothing penultimate about this one."
"This," he said, "really is the absolute end, the final chilling desolation, in which the whole majestic sweep of creation becomes extinct. This ladies and gentlemen is the proverbial `it'."
"After this," he said, "there is nothing. Void. Emptiness. Oblivion. Absolute nothing ..." And for once," he cried cheerily, "you don't need to worry about having a hangover in the morning - because there won't be any more mornings!"
"It's marvellous though," he rattled on, "to see so many of you here tonight - no isn't it though? Yes, absolutely marvellous. Because I know that so many of you come here time and time again, which I think is really wonderful, to come and watch this final end of everything, and then return home to your own eras ... and raise families, strive for new and better societies, fight terrible wars for what you know to be right ... it really gives one hope for the future of all lifekind. Except of course," he waved at the blitzing turmoil above and around them, "that we know it hasn't got one ..."

I quote all this because it represents exactly what science teaches.

There are really only two possible outcomes to the universe as understood by science. Either the gradient of the universe is greater than or equal to zero (i.e the universe will either continue to expand infinitely, or will asymptotically approach some maximum size), in which case entropy will event result in a frozen universe without life. Or the gradient or the universe is negative in which case it will eventually collapse in on itself into a flaming singularity. The bottom line in either case is there will eventually be a time when the universe will be unable to support life of any kind. There are no other solutions supported by science. At least as far as "lifekind" is concerned there will eventually be an end to the universe.

So, if your faith is only in science, why bother?

What value is there in raising children, building a better world, creating monuments, etc. Yeah, you might make things better for some number of generations; but eventually there will be no more generations. People may be able to see your monument for many years; but eventually there will be no one left to see them. It doesn't matter if mankind expands beyond this planet, or if some new lifeform evolves and discovers what we have left behind. Eventually they too will die out since science says that the eventual end is universal and inevitable. If the consequences of anything you do is guaranteed to be of limited duration, then why look past your own lifetime? Or your own life?

Frankly, if I didn't have faith – if someone came up with an absolute proof that there is no God and that the universe is a random accident, I could see myself becoming an amoral hedonist. I'd live for my short-term pleasure. I wouldn't break any big laws because I wouldn't want to risk wasting time in prison, and I would be careful not to be so nasty to anyone that they might take harmful action against me; but beyond that – anything goes. If nothing I do matters in the long term – if you think in long enough terms - (and that is the real lesson of science), then why not?

Posted by Steven at 06:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

June 21, 2005

What do "priorities" mean?

Conventional wisdom is that people should prioritize all of the things which vie for their time and "work on the highest priority task first". On face value that sounds like really good advice, and certainly many people spend way too much of their time on tasks which are in fact unimportant to them.

The problem is that this simple model of "work on priority #1 until it is done, then work on #2" breaks down once you introduce tasks which either never complete or which have specific deadlines. Here are two examples:

- The classic statement "my family is higher priority than work". So that that mean you should quit your job and spend all of your with your family? Well, no….. So what does it really mean to prioritize family vs. work?

- Let's say you have two tasks: Task A which will take 1 week and is due in 3 weeks, and Task B which will take 8 weeks and is due in 10 weeks. Now let's say it is much more important that you get task B done than task A. Does that mean task B is higher priority and you should work on it until it is done, by which time it will be too take to work on task A? What if you are not sure if Task B will take 8 or 10 weeks, so you aren't sure if you have time to do task A as well? How do you prioritize them now?

I think real life requires more complex ways to think and talk about priorities.

First, I think all priorities should always be stated as goals with specific deadline. You should not set as a priority "write my first novel"; but rather "write my first novel by the time I am 30". That allows you to really think about how important it is to do someone by that point in time. It also allows you to have a task in your priority list multiple times. It might be a middle priority to "write my first novel by the time I am 30"; but a very high priority to "write my first novel by the time I am 60". Having both statements on your priority list I think is quite useful, and helps priorities other tasks which might aid those goals (like taking writing classes).

Second, I think ongoing priorities (like family) can be looked at as recurring goals. While it is hard to know how to apply a statement like "family is more important than work", I think it is easier to prioritize "spend 20 hours with family each month" vs. "work overtime to complete project X on time". Again, you might have the same task listed twice with different granularity. You might have the goals to "spend 5 hours each week writing" and also "spend 20 hours each month writing"? While they may have the same effect over the long haul, there may be things which are more important to you for an individual week which are not more important than making monthly progress.

Posted by Steven at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 09, 2005

International News

I am frustrated with how hard it is to get real international news in the USA. It seems that the only international stories which get covered by the major news outlets are either ones that directly involve the USA (Iraq), or are of such magnitude that they can't be ignored (last year's tsunami).

This is certainly true for the TV networks. Even CNN and Fox News (both of whom have excellent international news channels shown overseas) follow this pattern in the US. I was disappointed this week when CNN announced an hour show every weekday which was supposed to provide global news; but the only stories they showed which were not about America were a soccer match and the world weather report.

It is perhaps not surprising the America's foreign policy is so often ill advised when so few American are exposed to real information about what is happening in the world. Its very easy to assume you are the center of the universe when all you hear are stories about yourself.

Posted by Steven at 09:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

June 04, 2005

Going to the extreme

Natural systems tend toward equilibrium. Things, on average, tend to average out. Measure most things in the real world and you get a nice bell curve with a few items out on the edges with extreme values, but most clumped together in the middle.

My observation however is that the opposite is true is human opinions. I used to think that the majority of people were "moderates" on any given subject, and it was only a few people who took extreme positions; but I am starting to wonder if that is true. The more I look at history, the more I think there is some force at work which naturally polarizes people into opposing camps on any subject, where each camp becomes more and more extreme in their convictions as time goes by and where the "middle ground" becomes less and less populated as each side recruits members and few ever revert back to moderation.

A while back I worked on a game design intended to present an abstract version of "politics". The board represented the space of political views, and there were pieces on the board which represented the general population. Each player also had a piece on the board that represented themselves as a politician. The actions you could take could have several effects including: moving your piece on the board (refining your "position"), moving an opponents piece on the board (for instance, characterizing them as an extremist by moving them closer to the edge), moving people on the board (advertising to change the population's opinions), and marking population pieces to be loyal to you, or removing their loyalty to another player. There was a lot of detail I'm skipping here.

What I noticed in my own playing with the partially complete system was that the best strategy was for the players to take opposing positions about a quarter of the way in from the edge. So with three players, they would form a triangle on the board, each half-way between the middle and the edge and as far apart from each other as they could get. As game progressed, it was in each player's interest to try and move population away from the middle t