Sam Harris, the neuroscientist and philosopher most famous for his strident opposition to religion, has a blog. recently he has been talking about the mystery of consciousness. This mystery he sums up as "that there should be 'something that it is like'" I think it can be put more clearly that all the machinery of our brains has inputs, outputs, inner communication and so on, but it is very hard to work out why there should be some sense that there is an I that is aware at some level that there is going on. He believes that this problem is intractable, that why there is a "sense of I" will never be worked out even if we understand completely how the brain works.
There are many other people who ask themselves what is their purpose in life. Why am I here? What should I do? What is the point of this existence? The answers that come from science, that we are here through a very long natural process based on complex chemical interactions and the survival of self-replicating chemical structures, are often considered to be unsatisfactory.
Usually people who consider these questions extend them into the Universe at large. Why is there anything at all? Why is that a tree and not a hedgehog?
For me, these questions all have a fundamental flaw. They are questions prompted by the brain to produce answers that satisfy the biases of the human brain. The human brain is biased to see patterns, meanings, stories, and actors (an entity causing something to happen). I have talked about all of these before.
Each of these questions are 'Why?" questions. "Why?" is a question that asks the purpose or reason for something, and the fact that there is the same word for both of these definitions is highly instructive. This conflation of purpose and reason is absolutely at the heart of humanity, and at the edges of intellectual thought can become quite problematic. In fact, even the word, "Reason" is a conflation of several independent ideas (how things came to be, the purpose for something coming to be, a description of a method of thinking).
Why are we here? The reason we are here can be stated with a fair amount of assurance for it being true is "why" means the same thing as "how it came to pass". How it came to pass that we are here, while enormously complex is a story science can generally tell. We can answer the question. It is a good question to ask because we can explore the evidence and come up with an answer.
However, if the question means "what is the purpose of us being here" we have greater difficulty. With "how it came to pass" we are going off vast amounts of data, essentially all the data there is, that the way things were in the past give cause to the way things are presently, and out present will cause the future. From this we can assume that there is a way that things came to be, there is a how, which is merely a description. The Laws of Nature are not actually laws, they are descriptions of how things happen.
With questions about the purpose of things we have greater difficulty because we don't have vast amounts of data that there is a purpose of all things. When human beings make a decision to do something there is generally a purpose. I go to the store to buy food so that I can eat and not be hungry, which is unpleasant. What is the purpose of the vast vacuum of space, the bit with nothing in it? Surely a purpose requires a goal, and a goal requires a plan, and a plan requires someone to make the plan. Who made the plan for vast areas of nothing? it seems to me quite reasonable to think that some things have a purpose, and that these things derive their purpose from someone deciding what their purpose is. Purpose is given to things from an outside source, it isn't inherent in things.
That there is not even the beginning of a consensus on whether there is a being outside the universe, on what such a being might want, how we might be connected to that desire, how me might bring it about, or what most of the Universe is for, seems excellent evidence that the assumption that there is a purpose is at least highly questionable. Asking, "Why are we here?" without meaning, "How did it come to pass that we are here?" seems to me to making an enormous assumption, that there is a purpose. A scientist operating according to science should at least have some evidence that there is a thing about which there are things you can discover. A scientist would never investigate the properties of a thing for which there is no evidence. "Why is there...." is simply a question that shouldn't be asked without the knowledge of a someone involved who might have a purpose. Why is this a rock, not a tree? Because then it wouldn't be a rock, the question inherently makes no sense. How did it become to be a rock? leads to a whole chain of causality that can be investigated.
We ask these "Why?" questions because of our biases. We think in terms of patterns, plans, intention. We automatically assign intention "A tree struggles towards the light so that it can receive the energy of the sun" when actually under the circumstances a tree simply must grow or not because of its nature. A tree doesn't try to grow for a purpose. Even though we know that this is true (the tree simply doesn't have the intellectual apparatus to try or struggle or have a goal) it is very hard to think of it in another way.
Essentially there are two directions from which human beings can approach a question. We can come from the direction of ourselves, our minds, and look for the pattern, meaning, and purpose of an event. We can come from the direction of describing the event and then seeing if this event has pattern, meaning, and purpose.
I think this is the problem that Sam Harris has in his idea of a mystery about consciousness. He starts from the idea that consciousness is a special thing, unlike everything else, essentially that it is entirely purpose. It is the thing that is "Why?" rather than "How?" Consciousness is what searches for purpose, and meaning. The mistake that is made is mistaking the thing that looks for "Why?" as therefore requiring an answer to "Why?" for its existence.
I think consciousness is simply what happens when matter is arranged in the way it is in the human (and other animals) brain. Why is their consciousness, a sense that there is an I experiencing things? Because it would be impossible for there not to be under the circumstances. Why does a rock fall? Because a rock and the Earth have mass, and mass is the inherent quality of things that attract each other. A rock falls because it is a rock, and a rock is a thing that falls. A human brain has consciousness because it is a human brain, and a human brain is a thing with consciousness. There is no mystery beyond the human invention of a mystery. The answer is intractable because the question has been constructed about something that doesn't exist. It makes as much sense as asking 'What are the dreams of the color yellow?"
How did it come to be that human brains have consciousness? I think it is because consciousness is simply a rather messy method of providing a feedback loop for improving the chance of survival and reproduction. A consciousness is something that is aware of being a creature. It is aware of the environment, of the past, can make predictions about the future, can test theories about the future, and change the way that creature goes about doing things. Evolutionarily this is enormously useful, that the creature with the most developed consciousness is now the most successful creature on the planet speaks to this.
Just because you can frame a question, or wonder about something, it doesn't mean that there is an answer to the question, or that the something is real. Sometimes, even though you can ask a question, there are questions that don't need to be asked because they don't make sense to ask.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Education.
On ESPN, the cable sports network, there is a show at the moment called Rise Up. It is a show where a high school is picked (almost always a school in a deprived inner city) and the network arrives, examines the sports facilities and then does an "extreme makeover" of the facilities, leaving them in an astonishing state. The high school is left with running tracks, a full weight room, brand new equipment, one had a climbing wall. It really is amazing stuff. What is consistently said from teachers and the show is that poor, run down equipment engenders a sense of low self-esteem, that going to a ratty school means that children don't care, and this effects their expectations and results in their schooling.
The first part of the show consists of an earnest woman (who really needs to eat a cheeseburger) touring the facilities with a look of concern on her emaciated face. My reaction to this "before" section has consistently been, "What nice stuff they have." All of these high schools, specifically chosen for their degraded state, are nicer than the school I attended.
I went to Bishop Wordsworth's Church of England Grammar School For Boys. This was part of the old fashioned system in England in which an examination was given to children at the age of ten to determine which school they would attend for at least the next five years. The top 25% went to my school, the other went to a different school. Since this was old-fashioned the local council had decided to break the system by sending most of the funding to the other school and letting my school starve.
My home room was a twenty-five year old temporary building on breeze blocks (cinder blocks in the USA). I did not have a text book less than five years old at any point while I was there. Institutional paint from decades ago peeled off the walls. There was no piece of sports equipment from within the last decade. However, the educational achievement at this school is among the best in the UK. When I went to the University of Michigan I found that I was about two years ahead in terms of what I knew (and how to think) than most students. U-M is a really good school.
Looking at the record of US students (and UK students are actually worse in some respects) against other countries we find the US lagging behind in basic skills, the three 'R's. By my count the US is seventeenth on that list despite spending the fourth most amount of money of any country. However, US students score the highest on self-confidence of any country. One of the primary goals in US education is being met, ahead of the money spent on the problem, American pupils are self-confident. However, this does not seem to translate into education success.
During my schooling I cannot remember receiving any positive statement about my performance, character, work ethic, basically anything at any time. This is from both my teachers and parents over thirteen years. I remember telling my father once that about my good grades and his reply, "You should be getting all A's on everything." Now, as far as I can tell, all A's in US high schools is relatively easy, with correct test scores somewhere in the upper 90% range. In my school, and in the public examinations at the time, an A was somewhere in the 80% range, and few students, even good students got them. Passing grade was around 50%. Remember, I knew more arriving in college than my American peers. Self-esteem wasn't encouraged to achieve success, success was assumed, was difficult, and you were not ever going to get everything right.
So, Americans spend lots of money, work on self-esteem, encourage their students, have good facilities, and have relatively poor results. My school had no money, worked to reduce self-esteem, expected good results and had no encouragement, had awful facilities and achieved great results. What is the difference? The difference is that I was taught by good teachers who demanded success and discipline, in an environment where it was assumed that you were there to learn. I'm sure it also helped that the students had been pre-selected based on prior achievement.
This means that I am entirely unsurprised at the findings of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that teachers are by far the most important factor in the education of children. Furthermore, teachers in the USA have not been effectively taught how to teach, or been measured on the effectiveness of their teaching. In the USA more money is spent on education than most wealthy countries but less on teachers. Teachers also spend more time teaching than most countries. I think a cursory look around at the news will tell you to what regard teachers in the USA are held. So, lower pay for more work and less respect with poor instruction and poor measurement means you get a lower quality of applicant, with less skills, poorer improvement, and motivation to perform.
The Left think education should be improved by greater investment in schools, fee-form education emphasizing a love for learning and led by the initiative of children. They hate tests. The Right think teachers are lazy, good-for-nothings, who are paid too much for what they do. Both are wrong. There is no need for more money in US education. It should simply be redistributed in educating, measuring, and paying teachers who should be treated as respected professionals. These teachers should spend less time teaching and more time improving themselves and preparing their classes. You should be able to teach a high level of reading, writing and maths to kids by the age of ten. Seriously.
The rest of the time children should be playing, outside. You don't need hours of repetition on the same subject or problem. You need to do it enough to get it, be retaught in a different manner if you don't understand and then tested later to see if you retain it. Hours of similar math problems, or compulsory reading, or page after page of essay writing are done simply to fill the hours of schooling. There is an obesity epidemic among children, even a promotion by the National Football League to get children to play a full hour hour a day. An hour? How about six hours? It is supposed to be fun being a child. Homework is useless and not fun. All you need to do to supervise children playing is one adult who can watch it.
Sometimes it really is as simple as it seems. Respect and pay teachers and you will get good applicants. teach good applicants and you will get good teachers. Good teachers mean educated students. Educated students make good employees. Good employees make a good economy. A good economy produces good revenue. Good revenue produces good services.
The first part of the show consists of an earnest woman (who really needs to eat a cheeseburger) touring the facilities with a look of concern on her emaciated face. My reaction to this "before" section has consistently been, "What nice stuff they have." All of these high schools, specifically chosen for their degraded state, are nicer than the school I attended.
I went to Bishop Wordsworth's Church of England Grammar School For Boys. This was part of the old fashioned system in England in which an examination was given to children at the age of ten to determine which school they would attend for at least the next five years. The top 25% went to my school, the other went to a different school. Since this was old-fashioned the local council had decided to break the system by sending most of the funding to the other school and letting my school starve.
My home room was a twenty-five year old temporary building on breeze blocks (cinder blocks in the USA). I did not have a text book less than five years old at any point while I was there. Institutional paint from decades ago peeled off the walls. There was no piece of sports equipment from within the last decade. However, the educational achievement at this school is among the best in the UK. When I went to the University of Michigan I found that I was about two years ahead in terms of what I knew (and how to think) than most students. U-M is a really good school.
Looking at the record of US students (and UK students are actually worse in some respects) against other countries we find the US lagging behind in basic skills, the three 'R's. By my count the US is seventeenth on that list despite spending the fourth most amount of money of any country. However, US students score the highest on self-confidence of any country. One of the primary goals in US education is being met, ahead of the money spent on the problem, American pupils are self-confident. However, this does not seem to translate into education success.
During my schooling I cannot remember receiving any positive statement about my performance, character, work ethic, basically anything at any time. This is from both my teachers and parents over thirteen years. I remember telling my father once that about my good grades and his reply, "You should be getting all A's on everything." Now, as far as I can tell, all A's in US high schools is relatively easy, with correct test scores somewhere in the upper 90% range. In my school, and in the public examinations at the time, an A was somewhere in the 80% range, and few students, even good students got them. Passing grade was around 50%. Remember, I knew more arriving in college than my American peers. Self-esteem wasn't encouraged to achieve success, success was assumed, was difficult, and you were not ever going to get everything right.
So, Americans spend lots of money, work on self-esteem, encourage their students, have good facilities, and have relatively poor results. My school had no money, worked to reduce self-esteem, expected good results and had no encouragement, had awful facilities and achieved great results. What is the difference? The difference is that I was taught by good teachers who demanded success and discipline, in an environment where it was assumed that you were there to learn. I'm sure it also helped that the students had been pre-selected based on prior achievement.
This means that I am entirely unsurprised at the findings of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that teachers are by far the most important factor in the education of children. Furthermore, teachers in the USA have not been effectively taught how to teach, or been measured on the effectiveness of their teaching. In the USA more money is spent on education than most wealthy countries but less on teachers. Teachers also spend more time teaching than most countries. I think a cursory look around at the news will tell you to what regard teachers in the USA are held. So, lower pay for more work and less respect with poor instruction and poor measurement means you get a lower quality of applicant, with less skills, poorer improvement, and motivation to perform.
The Left think education should be improved by greater investment in schools, fee-form education emphasizing a love for learning and led by the initiative of children. They hate tests. The Right think teachers are lazy, good-for-nothings, who are paid too much for what they do. Both are wrong. There is no need for more money in US education. It should simply be redistributed in educating, measuring, and paying teachers who should be treated as respected professionals. These teachers should spend less time teaching and more time improving themselves and preparing their classes. You should be able to teach a high level of reading, writing and maths to kids by the age of ten. Seriously.
The rest of the time children should be playing, outside. You don't need hours of repetition on the same subject or problem. You need to do it enough to get it, be retaught in a different manner if you don't understand and then tested later to see if you retain it. Hours of similar math problems, or compulsory reading, or page after page of essay writing are done simply to fill the hours of schooling. There is an obesity epidemic among children, even a promotion by the National Football League to get children to play a full hour hour a day. An hour? How about six hours? It is supposed to be fun being a child. Homework is useless and not fun. All you need to do to supervise children playing is one adult who can watch it.
Sometimes it really is as simple as it seems. Respect and pay teachers and you will get good applicants. teach good applicants and you will get good teachers. Good teachers mean educated students. Educated students make good employees. Good employees make a good economy. A good economy produces good revenue. Good revenue produces good services.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Words and the Modern World
In England at the moment a professional soccer player has accused another professional soccer player of racially abusing him. The player making the accusation is a french black man. The person being accused is an Uruguayan white man. In the United States I am not sure if those terms are correct. Those who were once negroes, then coloreds, then blacks, are as far as I know now labeled African Americans. This makes it difficult to define which group a French man of somewhat African descent might be called, particularly if any of his family had lived somewhere other than France or Africa in the intervening period.
The word that is suggested was used is the deeply offensive "Nigger." Of course, the accusers first language is French, in which that word would be "Negre", equally offensive. The accuser also speaks some english having lived there for some time. The accused speaks primarily Spanish, with almost no English as he has lived there for barely six months. In Spanish the word would be "Negro" which means "Black" in Spanish, but can also be considered a racist descriptor of a, hmmm, black (?) person.
To unfortunately complicate the situation the use of the word, "Negro" towards someone has different meanings depending on the country of origin. In Spain or Mexico it is deeply offensive. However, in Uruguay, Venezuela, and Argentina the word is used as a term of endearment regardless of race. A mother might well call her little white boy "un negro pequeno." It is also used between close friends and so on.
So what we have is a French black man, who couldn't be called that in the USA but can in England, being offended because someone said something in Spanish that in many places would be considered a deeply offensive racist remark, but isn't in the place where the speaker came from.
This is a complicated issue, that involves intent, meaning, legal ramifications, language, and culture. The most widespread area where a discussion that could elucidate and educate people's understanding of the issue would be in forums and commentaries on-line. I have found out that any mention of the word, "Negro" on any forum will have the message removed, and all follow ups removed too. This is regardless of the meaning of the word, or whether its use is intended to educate or denigrate. Even further, any comment about whether it is appropriate to delete the message is also deleted.
So, a complex issue about offense taken involving race and culture cannot be commented on if at any point you talk about the offense and involve words about race or culture. Fear of the offense of racism taken to the point where it cannot be explained that it might not be racism in the first place. Ah, the modern world.
The word that is suggested was used is the deeply offensive "Nigger." Of course, the accusers first language is French, in which that word would be "Negre", equally offensive. The accuser also speaks some english having lived there for some time. The accused speaks primarily Spanish, with almost no English as he has lived there for barely six months. In Spanish the word would be "Negro" which means "Black" in Spanish, but can also be considered a racist descriptor of a, hmmm, black (?) person.
To unfortunately complicate the situation the use of the word, "Negro" towards someone has different meanings depending on the country of origin. In Spain or Mexico it is deeply offensive. However, in Uruguay, Venezuela, and Argentina the word is used as a term of endearment regardless of race. A mother might well call her little white boy "un negro pequeno." It is also used between close friends and so on.
So what we have is a French black man, who couldn't be called that in the USA but can in England, being offended because someone said something in Spanish that in many places would be considered a deeply offensive racist remark, but isn't in the place where the speaker came from.
This is a complicated issue, that involves intent, meaning, legal ramifications, language, and culture. The most widespread area where a discussion that could elucidate and educate people's understanding of the issue would be in forums and commentaries on-line. I have found out that any mention of the word, "Negro" on any forum will have the message removed, and all follow ups removed too. This is regardless of the meaning of the word, or whether its use is intended to educate or denigrate. Even further, any comment about whether it is appropriate to delete the message is also deleted.
So, a complex issue about offense taken involving race and culture cannot be commented on if at any point you talk about the offense and involve words about race or culture. Fear of the offense of racism taken to the point where it cannot be explained that it might not be racism in the first place. Ah, the modern world.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Material Things
Today there are cars and trucks which make the ascent and descent quick and convenient. As a result the farmers live down in the valleys all year round with their families and the comforts of the modern world. But the cottages still remain, in various states of disrepair. Being from a time before the modern world these cottages don't have electricity, or sewage, or really anything that we take for granted. Heat comes from a fire.
There is someone I know who lives in one of these places, a 47 year old man, someone who has wandered the world, drifting from one place to another, but this is now his home base. He makes his living by busking, or picking grapes, or other odd jobs here and there. He cannot drive and makes his way around Europe by walking, hitch-hiking, or public transport. I have never heard him complain that he hasn't enough, and he's happier and healthier than most of the people I know. This man is my brother Peter.
He has spent a considerable time in India, wandering around with a backpack. He has told me of returning to London after such a trip and seeing the beggars on the streets (there is no shortage of these) and feeling the urge to laugh at them. Why? "Because they didn't even know what being poor was," he said. After having seen the truly destitute on the streets of India, living skeletons starving to death or dying from disease, these comparatively plump people with access to shelter, daily food, and potable water, were rich in his eyes.
As for myself, for several years I worked in a building in downtown Portland that was available for those with "very low income." Practically this ranged from a low of zero income to a high of about $300 a week. In my capacity there I helped hungry people find food, those without furniture to find a bed, those without money to pay for their electricity and heating. It was a horribly depressing place to be, and perhaps some time I will write the list of things I saw there that have damaged me. Suffice it to say that entering the building fills me with dread, my heart rate rises, and I have an animal urge to flee. However, nobody starved, nobody died of exposure, nobody died of dysentery, or cholera, etc..
All around me in the USA at the moment I hear cries of anguish against the terrible plight affecting the poor, and even the middle class. A few days ago I heard some one say, "You can't live on $35,000 these days." I have heard tragic stories of people committing suicide because they have lost everything. There are people around the country publicly demonstrating to get their fair share. I have heard people complaining that they won't be able to own a house, or keep the house in which they presently live, in disbelief that this would be allowed to happen. I have heard the story of a retired veteran who was a teacher for forty years (and therefore gets social security, a pension, and free health care) complain that he has to live in an apartment and struggles to pay the bills (on what must be about $25,000 a year).
People say it isn't fair for them to be poor like this. That the rich have taken it away from them.
Well, the truth is that the poorest people in the USA, in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression make as much money when you adjust for inflation as they did in 1979. before the downturn they made about 11% more than they used to. This does not include any technological improvements (most people on welfare in the USA these days have a color tv with cable and a cell phone, the objects of only the rich in 1979). In fact, over this period, all sections of the US population have become wealthier. The middle class have become about 1/5th wealthier in the last thirty years. While it is usually mocked and derided, it is actually true that "A rising tide lifts all boats."
The US has one of the highest average incomes in the world. In fact the standard by which Americans are designated as poor is about the same as the average income in Portugal, and higher than the average income in Costa Rica. These are not third world countries, these are stable democracies with school systems, health systems, roads, bridges etc.. While it is deplorable that there are homeless people in the US the highest estimates for the number of homeless is 1 in 600, 1/6th of one percent. The poor of the United States are rich compared with the rest of the world.
What then are people complaining about? People are complaining that they have not had "their fair share of the pie", and a very, very large pie it is. It is absolutely true that the better off you are the greater your increase in wealth. It is absolutely true that the wealth disparity in the US (and the UK) is growing. It is absolutely true that this is not as good for the future of the US as a more equitable distribution of wealth. It is absolutely true that I think the wealthy should be taxed more and that money spent on improved services. But the truth of it is that rich people are complaining vociferously that they are not rich enough while the fabulously wealthy try to hold on to their fabulous wealth. In the US the class warfare is between the rich and the very, very, very rich.
Why then are people complaining with such anguish? The first reason is that most Americans are literally entirely unaware of what real poverty is. It was a repeated theme of my work in that building that those who had lost their money through bad luck or illness were in literal disbelief at how few services there were for the poor, and this being a place with food, shelter, furniture, bathrooms, and electricity. Most Americans have never seen a family living in a corrugated iron shack, eating the same meager meal every day and washing their two sets of clothing in river water. Actually living like that is literally unimaginable. Most Americans think that living in an old apartment with ratty carpets, peeling paint, shopping in bulk at Costco, and driving a fifteen year old car which is difficult to keep full of gas, is really poor.
The second reason is that people have forgotten the lessons that every single one of us is taught from an early age, and then repeated over and over again. The best things in life are free. Love is what really matters. You can't buy happiness. Be grateful for what you have. These things are true! I mean that, they really are true. Has any material thing ever come close to making you as happy as a friend?
It is a good thing to wish that the world was a fairer place, a kinder place, a safer place, a more beautiful place. It is an even better thing to work to make it so. It is an absolute tragedy to make yourself miserable as a consequence. It is possible to be like my brother, high on a mountain, owning very little but a love for life.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Recycling Ideas
Over the last twenty-four hours I have had a discussion that some of you may have noticed on facebook. This discussion is essentially about the meaning of the word "socialism." His meaning (in this case) when boiled down to the basics is that a meaning of socialism is traffic lights and public roads, because right wing pundits have equated some government programs as "socialism" and therefore if they really understood what they were talking about ALL government programs would therefore be "socialist." My position is that socialism means what it says it means in dictionaries, encyclopedias, in classrooms, and what socialist mean when they call themselves socialist.
This frustrates me, because I think the meaning of words matters. If words don't have a precise meaning then it is impossible to have a precise conversation. I understand that the meaning of words changes over time because the meaning of a word is what people think it means. However, I do think that at any one time there must be an agreement of what a word means in order to actually communicate. That's why we have dictionaries and encyclopedias etc..
The alternative to having a consensus on the meaning of words is best described through the lens of the Theory of Evolution. There is a precise meaning for those words, available in dictionaries, encyclopedias, from scientists, and in classrooms. However, in the effort against the belief of evolution people distort the meanings of the words. "It's only a theory, just a guess. They don't really know if it's true." Well, a Theory backed up by vast amounts of evidence and never falsified is as close to a fact as there is in the world. 'Evolution says that we came about from just luck, even for one bacteria to become another bacteria is so unlikely that it is less than one chance in a bigger number than all the atoms in the universe." Evolution is precisely the theory that describes how change happens in life in a non-random manner. "Nobody has ever seen a monkey become a cat." This is true, but evolution doesn't say this is so. These are "straw man" arguments, arguing against a position that nobody holds (see the first paragraph for another example). However, if there are not actual, real meanings for words it is impossible for there to be a straw man argument. Each person is able to define what the other person says regardless of what they mean.
The biggest problem for me is when there is already a word that means what people want to change a word to mean. In this case there are the words, "government programs" which everyone understands. Changing "socialism" to mean "government programs" means you have eliminated a word with real and useful meaning from the vocabulary.
Now, I know my frustration is counter-productive. I know that in an argument, if the person does not immediately take an interest in your position and try to come to a consensus on what the argument is about or disagrees twice, then it is impossible to change that person's mind. What is important to people is whether they fit into a group, and maintaining their reputation as never being wrong.
So, I should go back to working towards a dream, not involving myself in fruitless arguing but immersing myself in mindfulness, in living a good life, in bettering myself and remaining optimistic. I should work to make these things true habits.
I may manage this for a while, but I am pretty sure I'll be back to this again, equally frustrated again. We are who we are.
This frustrates me, because I think the meaning of words matters. If words don't have a precise meaning then it is impossible to have a precise conversation. I understand that the meaning of words changes over time because the meaning of a word is what people think it means. However, I do think that at any one time there must be an agreement of what a word means in order to actually communicate. That's why we have dictionaries and encyclopedias etc..
The alternative to having a consensus on the meaning of words is best described through the lens of the Theory of Evolution. There is a precise meaning for those words, available in dictionaries, encyclopedias, from scientists, and in classrooms. However, in the effort against the belief of evolution people distort the meanings of the words. "It's only a theory, just a guess. They don't really know if it's true." Well, a Theory backed up by vast amounts of evidence and never falsified is as close to a fact as there is in the world. 'Evolution says that we came about from just luck, even for one bacteria to become another bacteria is so unlikely that it is less than one chance in a bigger number than all the atoms in the universe." Evolution is precisely the theory that describes how change happens in life in a non-random manner. "Nobody has ever seen a monkey become a cat." This is true, but evolution doesn't say this is so. These are "straw man" arguments, arguing against a position that nobody holds (see the first paragraph for another example). However, if there are not actual, real meanings for words it is impossible for there to be a straw man argument. Each person is able to define what the other person says regardless of what they mean.
The biggest problem for me is when there is already a word that means what people want to change a word to mean. In this case there are the words, "government programs" which everyone understands. Changing "socialism" to mean "government programs" means you have eliminated a word with real and useful meaning from the vocabulary.
Now, I know my frustration is counter-productive. I know that in an argument, if the person does not immediately take an interest in your position and try to come to a consensus on what the argument is about or disagrees twice, then it is impossible to change that person's mind. What is important to people is whether they fit into a group, and maintaining their reputation as never being wrong.
So, I should go back to working towards a dream, not involving myself in fruitless arguing but immersing myself in mindfulness, in living a good life, in bettering myself and remaining optimistic. I should work to make these things true habits.
I may manage this for a while, but I am pretty sure I'll be back to this again, equally frustrated again. We are who we are.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Wins Over Replacement
For a long time in sport people made decisions essentially entirely upon what their perceptions were either from themselves, or from other people they trusted. Experienced people brought up with the fundamentals of the game in question would make decisions based on their own thoughts, what they saw happening, and the traditional accepted view.
In the late seventies a man named Bill James started looking at baseball in a different way, he started evaluating the game objectively, through the methods of measurement and statistics, with the goal being to see what helped teams win rather than what people thought helped teams win. It took about twenty years before this approach was taken on by a Major League team, the Oakland A's, as a useful addition to their method of running their business. There was a noticeable improvement of the team in comparison to the resources the team had when this transition was made. This has been made famous by the book, and now the film, Moneyball.
Now, the majority of sports fans view this approach still as less useful than their own eyes and knowledge. A minority of sports fans have embraced this approach and in discussions will provide objective evidence for their opinions, with usually a vast amount of scoffing. However, in the enormously competitive world of professional sports almost every single team in the world now using statistics all the time when making decisions. this doesn't mean that statistics make all the decisions, just that they are a vital part in informing those who make those decisions.
One of the new statistics was something called Wins Over Replacement Player. Essentially what this means is an evaluation of the contribution a player makes (with a combination of offensive statistics and defensive statistics plugged into a formula) towards the team winning. it isn't a measure of whether the player hits the ball, or looks good, it is a measure of whether the team wins more or less, and roughly how much, when the player is playing compared to what you can get as a replacement. The replacement concept is not an average player, it is what is freely available, what you can just pick up.
Why am I talking about this sports statistic for a group of people who probably don't care much about sports, and almost certainly not about sporting statistics? It's because I want to bring across the concept of "Better Than Replacement Value" when making decisions. I see people all the time saying that the USA is crap, a politician is crap, this corporation is crap, my coworkers are crap, management are crap, my bank is crap. These are all value based judgments and so I think it useful to think crap compared with what? If you work in a big company there are going to be people you think are bad at their jobs. So, are they bad at their jobs? It depends what you compare them to. Are they more crap than Bill Gates or Paul Krugman, almost certainly. are they crap compared to a member of the Taliban? Almost certainly not. Does Houston suck? Yes compared with Tuscany, no when compared with Somalia.
So, how "good" something is depends on what it is compared against. Are you disappointed with Barak Obama? If so, you are probably disappointed because of the large difference between what he said he was going to do and what has happened. I want to change the way you think about how to evaluate the job he is doing, not necessarily change your opinion but how you go about making that decision. I want you to judge Obama against replacement value, that is evaluate his job against those who could have been President. On the Democratic side everyone but Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama had dropped out of the race because they knew they had no chance of winning. On the Republican side John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckerbee, Alan Keyes, and Ron Paul managed to get past January, but only Mitt Romney and Mike Huckerbee got enough delegates to really be considered viable candidates.
This means that the replacement values for Obama are Clinton, McCain, Huckerbee, and Mitt Romney. This means that you can either value the job Barak Obama has done against the job these other candidates would have done, or you can evaluate him against something that is not possible in the real world.
When buying a car do you make your decision based upon how the car matches up to a car you have made up in your head that you would like to own? Do you make a decision on whether you like your car or not based upon how it matches up with a Ferrari you cannot afford, or based upon how it does compared with a car you could actually buy.
When deciding whether you are disappointed or not with living in the USA under the present system it seems sensible to me to compare your conditions with other real possibilities. Would you be wealthier, safer, more content and healthier elsewhere? Would you be better off living under a theocracy like Saudi Arabia, a socialist country like Venezuela, a parliamentary system like the UK, or a different republic like Russia? If the answer is "yes" I strongly suggest organizing things so that you can move.
This does not mean that people should not be thinking of different and new ways of living. It doesn't mean that we can't strive to make the world a better place. This way of thinking simply evaluates things against reality, against the alternative rather than a fantasy. Work towards your best fantasy but only by acknowledging what is actually possible right now. The best now can only be achieved by choosing between possible nows.
In the late seventies a man named Bill James started looking at baseball in a different way, he started evaluating the game objectively, through the methods of measurement and statistics, with the goal being to see what helped teams win rather than what people thought helped teams win. It took about twenty years before this approach was taken on by a Major League team, the Oakland A's, as a useful addition to their method of running their business. There was a noticeable improvement of the team in comparison to the resources the team had when this transition was made. This has been made famous by the book, and now the film, Moneyball.
Now, the majority of sports fans view this approach still as less useful than their own eyes and knowledge. A minority of sports fans have embraced this approach and in discussions will provide objective evidence for their opinions, with usually a vast amount of scoffing. However, in the enormously competitive world of professional sports almost every single team in the world now using statistics all the time when making decisions. this doesn't mean that statistics make all the decisions, just that they are a vital part in informing those who make those decisions.
One of the new statistics was something called Wins Over Replacement Player. Essentially what this means is an evaluation of the contribution a player makes (with a combination of offensive statistics and defensive statistics plugged into a formula) towards the team winning. it isn't a measure of whether the player hits the ball, or looks good, it is a measure of whether the team wins more or less, and roughly how much, when the player is playing compared to what you can get as a replacement. The replacement concept is not an average player, it is what is freely available, what you can just pick up.
Why am I talking about this sports statistic for a group of people who probably don't care much about sports, and almost certainly not about sporting statistics? It's because I want to bring across the concept of "Better Than Replacement Value" when making decisions. I see people all the time saying that the USA is crap, a politician is crap, this corporation is crap, my coworkers are crap, management are crap, my bank is crap. These are all value based judgments and so I think it useful to think crap compared with what? If you work in a big company there are going to be people you think are bad at their jobs. So, are they bad at their jobs? It depends what you compare them to. Are they more crap than Bill Gates or Paul Krugman, almost certainly. are they crap compared to a member of the Taliban? Almost certainly not. Does Houston suck? Yes compared with Tuscany, no when compared with Somalia.
So, how "good" something is depends on what it is compared against. Are you disappointed with Barak Obama? If so, you are probably disappointed because of the large difference between what he said he was going to do and what has happened. I want to change the way you think about how to evaluate the job he is doing, not necessarily change your opinion but how you go about making that decision. I want you to judge Obama against replacement value, that is evaluate his job against those who could have been President. On the Democratic side everyone but Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama had dropped out of the race because they knew they had no chance of winning. On the Republican side John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckerbee, Alan Keyes, and Ron Paul managed to get past January, but only Mitt Romney and Mike Huckerbee got enough delegates to really be considered viable candidates.
This means that the replacement values for Obama are Clinton, McCain, Huckerbee, and Mitt Romney. This means that you can either value the job Barak Obama has done against the job these other candidates would have done, or you can evaluate him against something that is not possible in the real world.
When buying a car do you make your decision based upon how the car matches up to a car you have made up in your head that you would like to own? Do you make a decision on whether you like your car or not based upon how it matches up with a Ferrari you cannot afford, or based upon how it does compared with a car you could actually buy.
When deciding whether you are disappointed or not with living in the USA under the present system it seems sensible to me to compare your conditions with other real possibilities. Would you be wealthier, safer, more content and healthier elsewhere? Would you be better off living under a theocracy like Saudi Arabia, a socialist country like Venezuela, a parliamentary system like the UK, or a different republic like Russia? If the answer is "yes" I strongly suggest organizing things so that you can move.
This does not mean that people should not be thinking of different and new ways of living. It doesn't mean that we can't strive to make the world a better place. This way of thinking simply evaluates things against reality, against the alternative rather than a fantasy. Work towards your best fantasy but only by acknowledging what is actually possible right now. The best now can only be achieved by choosing between possible nows.
Friday, October 7, 2011
On Christianity
I had attended many, many church services, sang hymns, been told the
well known stories of Jesus but I hadn't read the Bible. I think this is
actually very common. i assumed that the New Testament simply said what
are the dogma of Christianity, that Jesus plainly said that he was God,
part of a Trinity, and that if you were good, kind and humble you went
to Heaven after you died, and if you were naughty you went to Hell after
you died.
In order to converse reasonably intelligently on this forum I have since spent some time researching what the Bible actually says. This has been a real eye-opener. In my estimation Jesus never plainly says the things that I thought he said. All of these things are either made up after Jesus had been dead for some time (the Trinity, Heaven and Hell are after you are dead) or inferred from somewhat vague phrases (I am the way. Before Abraham I am. The Son of God (also used by recent predecessor Caesar Augustus)).
Here are some portions of the New Testament that I think are vital when considering what was Jesus and what was he teaching.
Matthew 3: 1-2 1 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”
Mark 1:15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (This is Jesus speaking).
Mark 13 2-4 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” 3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
Mark 13:30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Mathew 16: 28 - "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom".
Luke 17:19-21 - When he was asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The Kingdom of God does not come with observation, nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed the Kingdom of God is within you."
Matthew 5 17-18 17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Luke 24 4-7 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 `The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’”
Luke 18:19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.
Mark 15 34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
Luke 24:39 - See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me,and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.
So from these passages I get that Jesus was a faithful Jew who believed that the Kingdom of Heaven was on the Earth, before death, within people, and about to happen. He believed in a time of great tribulation including the destruction of the Temple within the same generation in which all his prophecies would come true. He said he was not God. When crucified he was forlorn because his predictions had not come true and he was simply dying before his prophecies had come true. After crucifixion he was living and not a spirit and still had the wounds of crucifixion.
The important thing for me is that these are not things said about Jesus or John the Baptist but rather direct quotes from them. The inferences I make from these quotes are simple and plain and do not require vast amounts of inference and metaphor. In the face of these quotes (which I am astonished have not been removed from the Bible) I find myself frankly amazed that Christian dogma is what it is.
I believe Jesus (and John the Baptist) believed he was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher in a nation that had turned away from the commandments of Jewish Law. As a result he believed that an apocalypse like Noah's flood was about to happen. He was crucified before this happened, despaired, survived the crucifixion and fled.
Matthew 24 36-39 "As the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."
In order to converse reasonably intelligently on this forum I have since spent some time researching what the Bible actually says. This has been a real eye-opener. In my estimation Jesus never plainly says the things that I thought he said. All of these things are either made up after Jesus had been dead for some time (the Trinity, Heaven and Hell are after you are dead) or inferred from somewhat vague phrases (I am the way. Before Abraham I am. The Son of God (also used by recent predecessor Caesar Augustus)).
Here are some portions of the New Testament that I think are vital when considering what was Jesus and what was he teaching.
Matthew 3: 1-2 1 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”
Mark 1:15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (This is Jesus speaking).
Mark 13 2-4 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” 3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
Mark 13:30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Mathew 16: 28 - "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom".
Luke 17:19-21 - When he was asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The Kingdom of God does not come with observation, nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed the Kingdom of God is within you."
Matthew 5 17-18 17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Luke 24 4-7 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 `The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’”
Luke 18:19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.
Mark 15 34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
Luke 24:39 - See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me,and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.
So from these passages I get that Jesus was a faithful Jew who believed that the Kingdom of Heaven was on the Earth, before death, within people, and about to happen. He believed in a time of great tribulation including the destruction of the Temple within the same generation in which all his prophecies would come true. He said he was not God. When crucified he was forlorn because his predictions had not come true and he was simply dying before his prophecies had come true. After crucifixion he was living and not a spirit and still had the wounds of crucifixion.
The important thing for me is that these are not things said about Jesus or John the Baptist but rather direct quotes from them. The inferences I make from these quotes are simple and plain and do not require vast amounts of inference and metaphor. In the face of these quotes (which I am astonished have not been removed from the Bible) I find myself frankly amazed that Christian dogma is what it is.
I believe Jesus (and John the Baptist) believed he was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher in a nation that had turned away from the commandments of Jewish Law. As a result he believed that an apocalypse like Noah's flood was about to happen. He was crucified before this happened, despaired, survived the crucifixion and fled.
Matthew 24 36-39 "As the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Advice for Putting Music in Children's Lives
This is mostly directed at the Emilys but I think works for anyone.
Music is a wonderful thing, and being able to do a wonderful thing is a wonderful thing. Learning how to do things is enormously more easy for children, their brains are growing and teaching is basically altering the growth of brains so that certain tasks are easier. My only introduction to music growing up were the three albums my parents owned and about a month of trying to play a very cheap recorder in school.
At the age of thirty I was introduced to playing music again, and have worked to be able to play it now for eleven years. i think in those eleven years I have learned as much as I would have in two years as a child, and a foundation of childhood skill would mean that all my learning of music in the future would be much easier.
I don't want to suggest that all children should learn music, just like I don't think all children should be forced to play sports, or made to paint. I do think all children should be introduced to these things to see if they like them, because they can all add great depths of richness to a life.
The first piece of advice I have is to get the right sort of instrument. If your child likes to sing this is the greatest instrument that a person can have, but learning an instrument will help them to sing and result in a more full musical experience. The right sort of instrument is a quality instrument that a child can play. Too often parents buy a full-size cheap "beginners" guitar because they don't want to waste their money if their child gives up after a while. This is a terrible choice. A cheap instrument will sound terrible if almost anyone plays it, and much worse for a beginner.
A a full size guitar is too big for a child to operate, my hands are really too small for a guitar, and a child will have difficulty with the long neck. The guitar also requires significant strength in the fingers and callouses on the tips of the fingers that are earned through painful practice. A reduced size quality instrument will be easier to play and will provide vastly more encouragement because of the more beautiful sounds produced. Find your local used music shop, set a budget, and consult with the staff. You'll be hard pressed to find someone working in such an establishment who will cheat a child out of the opportunity to play the best instrument for them possible.
I really recommend starting with an electronic keyboard, you can get new ones for around $100. These have numerous advantages, the first being that they always make the right tone, the second that they are easily portable, the third that they require no physical strength or endurance to play, and the fourth is that the keyboard is by far the most intuitive way to learn music theory. The keyboard is laid out as music theory. Most keyboards have programmed songs in them and a vast array of different sounds. I recommend smashing these optionsto smithereens if possible for your own sanity and the learning of music. People do the most efficient thing and having the machine play songs for you or make lots of cool noises is the most efficient way to "make music" for a child of any age.
The second piece of advice I would give is to get a teacher early, and get one that teaches with tunes rather than theory and scales at first. Only when the child wishes to get better should these other approaches be introduced. It is fun to play songs but not fun to practice technique. You can make a child become great at an instrument, but if they associate music with drudgery they will quit as soon as they have the power to do so. It is not necessary to have a music teacher for your child at all times during their childhood for the child to become very good at music.
My third piece of advice is to let the child be the motivating force. It is unlikely that your child will make a living playing music or require competence at music to survive the adult world. Music is not a requirement but a beautifully enriching luxury. Music should be played for fun, not because a parent wishes it to be played.
My fourth piece of advice is to encourage performance. There is nothing that will make music more fun than finishing a song and hearing people clap and cheer. From a parent clapping for a pre-school child singing to a crowd cheering ten year olds in a rock band at the local coffee house, it all makes it more wonderful.
My fifth piece of advice is to find some fun group activity for child musicians to play together. Music at its best is a collaborative activity, and understanding this as early as possible can only be good. One of the greatest examples I have seen is The Black Peppercorns who started out of a wonderful project called The Rock and Roll Camp for Girls.
Music is a wonderful thing, and being able to do a wonderful thing is a wonderful thing. Learning how to do things is enormously more easy for children, their brains are growing and teaching is basically altering the growth of brains so that certain tasks are easier. My only introduction to music growing up were the three albums my parents owned and about a month of trying to play a very cheap recorder in school.
At the age of thirty I was introduced to playing music again, and have worked to be able to play it now for eleven years. i think in those eleven years I have learned as much as I would have in two years as a child, and a foundation of childhood skill would mean that all my learning of music in the future would be much easier.
I don't want to suggest that all children should learn music, just like I don't think all children should be forced to play sports, or made to paint. I do think all children should be introduced to these things to see if they like them, because they can all add great depths of richness to a life.
The first piece of advice I have is to get the right sort of instrument. If your child likes to sing this is the greatest instrument that a person can have, but learning an instrument will help them to sing and result in a more full musical experience. The right sort of instrument is a quality instrument that a child can play. Too often parents buy a full-size cheap "beginners" guitar because they don't want to waste their money if their child gives up after a while. This is a terrible choice. A cheap instrument will sound terrible if almost anyone plays it, and much worse for a beginner.
A a full size guitar is too big for a child to operate, my hands are really too small for a guitar, and a child will have difficulty with the long neck. The guitar also requires significant strength in the fingers and callouses on the tips of the fingers that are earned through painful practice. A reduced size quality instrument will be easier to play and will provide vastly more encouragement because of the more beautiful sounds produced. Find your local used music shop, set a budget, and consult with the staff. You'll be hard pressed to find someone working in such an establishment who will cheat a child out of the opportunity to play the best instrument for them possible.
I really recommend starting with an electronic keyboard, you can get new ones for around $100. These have numerous advantages, the first being that they always make the right tone, the second that they are easily portable, the third that they require no physical strength or endurance to play, and the fourth is that the keyboard is by far the most intuitive way to learn music theory. The keyboard is laid out as music theory. Most keyboards have programmed songs in them and a vast array of different sounds. I recommend smashing these optionsto smithereens if possible for your own sanity and the learning of music. People do the most efficient thing and having the machine play songs for you or make lots of cool noises is the most efficient way to "make music" for a child of any age.
The second piece of advice I would give is to get a teacher early, and get one that teaches with tunes rather than theory and scales at first. Only when the child wishes to get better should these other approaches be introduced. It is fun to play songs but not fun to practice technique. You can make a child become great at an instrument, but if they associate music with drudgery they will quit as soon as they have the power to do so. It is not necessary to have a music teacher for your child at all times during their childhood for the child to become very good at music.
My third piece of advice is to let the child be the motivating force. It is unlikely that your child will make a living playing music or require competence at music to survive the adult world. Music is not a requirement but a beautifully enriching luxury. Music should be played for fun, not because a parent wishes it to be played.
My fourth piece of advice is to encourage performance. There is nothing that will make music more fun than finishing a song and hearing people clap and cheer. From a parent clapping for a pre-school child singing to a crowd cheering ten year olds in a rock band at the local coffee house, it all makes it more wonderful.
My fifth piece of advice is to find some fun group activity for child musicians to play together. Music at its best is a collaborative activity, and understanding this as early as possible can only be good. One of the greatest examples I have seen is The Black Peppercorns who started out of a wonderful project called The Rock and Roll Camp for Girls.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Psychic Activation Energy
There is a concept in chemistry called "Activation Energy." Basically what this means is that for a chemical reaction (like burning wood) to take place a certain amount of energy has to be put into the system (the spark, or flame from a match). With an exothermic reaction (something that gives off energy, like the wood fire) once the activation energy has started the reaction, the reaction then provides enough energy for the stuff around it to also react. So a spark lights a fire, and the heat from that fire starts the burning of the wood around it, and so on until all the wood is used up. With a exothermic reaction the state after the reaction has less energy. Burned wood has given off the energy from the fire, and therefore needs more energy to burn (like charcoal) or simply won't burn (like ash).
I want you now to compare the different levels of energy to the ease of a person's life. Our lives have a certain amount of difficulty, which is analogous to the amount of energy in wood. Now, this can be altered by the environment (put a piece of wood on Mount Everest and the cold and the reduced pressure makes it harder to burn, you need more activation energy). If you get sick then everything is a bit harder. You can't do much about this.
However, most of us can think of ways to reduce how difficult our lives could be. Do you get anxious about things that you can't change? Would your life be easier if you had a little more education? Would your life be easier if you were in better shape? Would things be easier if you were a little more humble and apologised to people you have hurt with your opinions? These are analogous to the reduced energy state after a chemical reaction, the wood after it has been burnt.
Isn't it often very difficult to get to that lower difficulty state? Do you find you can't stop worrying? Do you think of all the difficulties with going to school, the cost and the time? Do you find it difficult to start exercising (or do it on consecutive days)? Do you find it painfully difficult to suck it up and humble yourself before someone else, even though you know you are right? This difficulty is the activation energy, the hurdle you need to get over until you can get to the new state.
This activation energy can come in different forms, and over different amounts of time. As I have said before, real change comes from changing one's habits. What changes our habits are the will to think about changing them, the knowledge about how to change them, the courage to overcome our fears, and the effort to make it happen. It is all very well to know that you would be happier if you stopped worrying about things you can't change, but this does nothing to help you if you don't find out how to do it, don't over come the fear of changing yourself or appearing silly, and without actually applying your knowledge in a consistent and practical manner.
We have all done it. Complained about our lives and then complained that what it would take to change the situation is too hard, and then gone back to complaining about our lives again. We have all also thought of big plans that we could do, who we could be, what we could achieve, and then done none of these things because of the effort involved. The thing is, with almost all these situations, the overall effort involved is less if you actually do the things. Just like a fire just needs a spark to get it going, psychic activation energy can get you to a place where your life is truly easier. Generally it is worth the effort.
This post is dedicated to my sister Emily, who has just made the effort, and as a result made me proud.
I want you now to compare the different levels of energy to the ease of a person's life. Our lives have a certain amount of difficulty, which is analogous to the amount of energy in wood. Now, this can be altered by the environment (put a piece of wood on Mount Everest and the cold and the reduced pressure makes it harder to burn, you need more activation energy). If you get sick then everything is a bit harder. You can't do much about this.
However, most of us can think of ways to reduce how difficult our lives could be. Do you get anxious about things that you can't change? Would your life be easier if you had a little more education? Would your life be easier if you were in better shape? Would things be easier if you were a little more humble and apologised to people you have hurt with your opinions? These are analogous to the reduced energy state after a chemical reaction, the wood after it has been burnt.
Isn't it often very difficult to get to that lower difficulty state? Do you find you can't stop worrying? Do you think of all the difficulties with going to school, the cost and the time? Do you find it difficult to start exercising (or do it on consecutive days)? Do you find it painfully difficult to suck it up and humble yourself before someone else, even though you know you are right? This difficulty is the activation energy, the hurdle you need to get over until you can get to the new state.
This activation energy can come in different forms, and over different amounts of time. As I have said before, real change comes from changing one's habits. What changes our habits are the will to think about changing them, the knowledge about how to change them, the courage to overcome our fears, and the effort to make it happen. It is all very well to know that you would be happier if you stopped worrying about things you can't change, but this does nothing to help you if you don't find out how to do it, don't over come the fear of changing yourself or appearing silly, and without actually applying your knowledge in a consistent and practical manner.
We have all done it. Complained about our lives and then complained that what it would take to change the situation is too hard, and then gone back to complaining about our lives again. We have all also thought of big plans that we could do, who we could be, what we could achieve, and then done none of these things because of the effort involved. The thing is, with almost all these situations, the overall effort involved is less if you actually do the things. Just like a fire just needs a spark to get it going, psychic activation energy can get you to a place where your life is truly easier. Generally it is worth the effort.
This post is dedicated to my sister Emily, who has just made the effort, and as a result made me proud.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Public Demonstrations
At the moment, to the delight of many of my friends, there is a public movement to occupy Wall Street in New York. Wall Street is of course the home of corporate America, and the demonstration is intended to express public discontent with the behavior and power of large corporations, and urges the government to change their priorities from corporations to people. I think it is a laudable goal to have government act in the interests of individual people, and I think very few people would argue with that statement.
This is essentially the Left's version of the Tea Party, which was a public demonstration to express disapproval of the government, and urging power over individual lives to be put in the hands of private entities, in particular individual people. Over time the Tea Party morphed into a political movement, organized itself into an active part of the government, voted in candidates and has had a real effect on the actions of the government. The Tea Party equates government action in general with acting against the interests of individual people.
I was a part of the largest global public demonstration of all time in advance of the Iraq War. This demonstration was enormous, organized, deeply felt and reported around the world. It had exactly zero effect on whether the war happened or not. However, in almost every single country in the world that participated in the war, other than the USA, the politicians who had been responsible for joining the war where voted out of office. When it came to actual politics, voting for candidates, the politicians were punished for their actions. This did not happen in the USA because the majority of Americans were in favor of the war.
The demonstrations against the Vietnam War had no effect. The demonstrations against corporate power in Seattle had no effect. Demonstrations in, and of themselves have no effect. This is exactly how it should be in a representative democracy. In such a system the point at which the individual has a say in their government is in the voting booth. If there is a massive demonstration against the actions of the government but the government is voted back into power then the majority of the country does not agree with the demonstration. The loudest do not over-rule the majority, and we should be very pleased about this.
So, these demonstrations will have no effect unless a public display becomes a political movement that elects people with similar views to the demonstration. This will only happen if the demonstrations become politically organized and puts forward candidates that can get elected. Such candidates can only be elected in places where the majority of voters agree with the thrust of the arguments of the demonstration. This means that at some point there need to be concrete, agreed opinions among a significant portion of the Left. This is more difficult for the Left then the Right since there is a greater diversity of opinion among the Left.
Furthermore, this political group has to be large enough in office, and committed enough while in office, to make a difference to policy. The Tea Party was large enough, and committed enough to refuse to vote for more mainstream Republican policies even at the expense of having Democratic policies be instituted. A "People's Liberal Movement" would need to elect something like fifty representatives and a couple of senators to really make any difference. This group would also have to risk the passing of right wing law rather than moderate, middle ground law in order for their opinions to have teeth.
However, the model of the Tea Party is instructive on what happens when such a movement out of the mainstream gets power. The Tea Party had its highest approval ratings right before the last election, at around 37%. After its actions in government it now has its lowest approval ratings ever at around 28%. It has never really achieved a level at which more people approved than disapproved, but now over half the country disapprove of them, worse than Obama, the President who has only been in office with the economy in the tank.
I would guess that the majority of Americans do not approve of the Wall Street protesters, although there would be some commonality among some concerns with many Americans (the rich getting richer while we get poorer being the main one). Without political power this movement will be pointless, possibly detrimental to the advance of liberal ideology. While in office there is a good chance that the opinion of Americans will turn against them.
In US politics what happens is determined by the Middle. Over time the Middle has moved consistently to the Left, at least on social issues. This is still going on. The Left is winning, but only as it manages to convince the Middle, and this happens generally by influencing the young. This Wall Street demonstration will not sweep across America and change things forever. It's greatest hope is to elect some politicians who can influence policy, and change the minds of some people in the Middle, edging policy to the Left. This can only be done over the long term by appearing to the general public as reasonable people. The more extreme the public movement the less effective it will be.
This is essentially the Left's version of the Tea Party, which was a public demonstration to express disapproval of the government, and urging power over individual lives to be put in the hands of private entities, in particular individual people. Over time the Tea Party morphed into a political movement, organized itself into an active part of the government, voted in candidates and has had a real effect on the actions of the government. The Tea Party equates government action in general with acting against the interests of individual people.
I was a part of the largest global public demonstration of all time in advance of the Iraq War. This demonstration was enormous, organized, deeply felt and reported around the world. It had exactly zero effect on whether the war happened or not. However, in almost every single country in the world that participated in the war, other than the USA, the politicians who had been responsible for joining the war where voted out of office. When it came to actual politics, voting for candidates, the politicians were punished for their actions. This did not happen in the USA because the majority of Americans were in favor of the war.
The demonstrations against the Vietnam War had no effect. The demonstrations against corporate power in Seattle had no effect. Demonstrations in, and of themselves have no effect. This is exactly how it should be in a representative democracy. In such a system the point at which the individual has a say in their government is in the voting booth. If there is a massive demonstration against the actions of the government but the government is voted back into power then the majority of the country does not agree with the demonstration. The loudest do not over-rule the majority, and we should be very pleased about this.
So, these demonstrations will have no effect unless a public display becomes a political movement that elects people with similar views to the demonstration. This will only happen if the demonstrations become politically organized and puts forward candidates that can get elected. Such candidates can only be elected in places where the majority of voters agree with the thrust of the arguments of the demonstration. This means that at some point there need to be concrete, agreed opinions among a significant portion of the Left. This is more difficult for the Left then the Right since there is a greater diversity of opinion among the Left.
Furthermore, this political group has to be large enough in office, and committed enough while in office, to make a difference to policy. The Tea Party was large enough, and committed enough to refuse to vote for more mainstream Republican policies even at the expense of having Democratic policies be instituted. A "People's Liberal Movement" would need to elect something like fifty representatives and a couple of senators to really make any difference. This group would also have to risk the passing of right wing law rather than moderate, middle ground law in order for their opinions to have teeth.
However, the model of the Tea Party is instructive on what happens when such a movement out of the mainstream gets power. The Tea Party had its highest approval ratings right before the last election, at around 37%. After its actions in government it now has its lowest approval ratings ever at around 28%. It has never really achieved a level at which more people approved than disapproved, but now over half the country disapprove of them, worse than Obama, the President who has only been in office with the economy in the tank.
I would guess that the majority of Americans do not approve of the Wall Street protesters, although there would be some commonality among some concerns with many Americans (the rich getting richer while we get poorer being the main one). Without political power this movement will be pointless, possibly detrimental to the advance of liberal ideology. While in office there is a good chance that the opinion of Americans will turn against them.
In US politics what happens is determined by the Middle. Over time the Middle has moved consistently to the Left, at least on social issues. This is still going on. The Left is winning, but only as it manages to convince the Middle, and this happens generally by influencing the young. This Wall Street demonstration will not sweep across America and change things forever. It's greatest hope is to elect some politicians who can influence policy, and change the minds of some people in the Middle, edging policy to the Left. This can only be done over the long term by appearing to the general public as reasonable people. The more extreme the public movement the less effective it will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)