A Thought - Awards in Architecture

It seems to me that architectural designs should not be given awards until they've been up for at least fifty years.

1. Buildings are meant to be used, meaning people must live and work in them. If they cannot be used comfortably, they cannot be called good, no matter how pretty they look. What good is a kitchen with countertops only three inches deep? You can't do much with it. What is the point of staircases three inches wide? Ferrets could use it, but who's designing building for ferrets? Buildings are designed around human actions, so they have to be designed in human proportions.

2. Corollary of #1: buildings are not meant to be repaired more than necessary. Fixing a building costs time and money, and it cuts into the everyday workings of the people using the building. Water needs to be shut off sometimes, areas are blocked off, and so on. For regular maintenance this can't be helped, and should be tolerated in the interest of preserving the building. Structural defects are not necessary, they are errors in the design itself and are therefore avoidable. (I'm thinking about the Portland Building fiasco, an avoidable architectural flower of evil. I don't include Portlandia, a sculptural gem.)

3. Neither the use nor the soundness of a building really can be seen right away. This is because we don't always know how people will respond to the building, and an architectural blueprint is extremely complex - flaws won't announce themselves. What looks good on paper, then, might not actually work in practice. But that wouldn't be due to a disconnect between theory and practice; rather, it would evidence an error in knowledge of principles. (See Immanuel Kant, On the Old Saw: That Might Be True in Theory, But It Won't Work in Practice. For the full text, listen here. Kant's talking about human affairs in general, so it applies to my argument too.)

4. Therefore we should hold off on any special awards for architectural designs for a sufficient length of time - fifty years, I'd say. Candidates could be chosen after half a century, or slated for monitoring that long. Costs for utilities, repairs, and maintenance would be logged up; those costs would yield post-construction rate by which to gauge the building. Detailed surveys could be taken every five years, finding the opinion of tenants of the building concerning its user-friendliness, adaptivity, visual appeal, etc. All this information would be brought to the table along with the blueprints for judging. This would do architecture more justice as a field by evaluating cases on the merits which fit the intent of the field, thus reducing the total amount of crow that needs to be eaten.

Discuss.
(Images haplessly horked from Design Language Etc. and Great Buildings.com *har*.)

Jan Tschichold on Typography, Learning,...and Agapé

"In a pathological pursuit of things different, the reasonable proportions of paper size, like so many other qualities, have been banished by some to the disadvantage of the solitary and defenseless reader. There was a time when deviations from the truly beautiful page proportions 2:3, 1:√ 3 , and the Golden Section were rare. Many books produced between 1550 and 1770 show these proportions exactly, to within half a millimetre.

"To learn this, one has to examine old books thoroughly. Alas, almost no one does this any more, yet the benefits of such study are imeasurable. Schools of typography, in cooperation with libraries of old books, need to undertake two things: first, a detailed inspection of old books, and second, in support of this, permanent as well as changing exhibitions of these old treasures. An admiringly superficial look at a particularly beautiful set of pages or title pages only is not sufficient. One has to be able to touch these books and carefully study their typographical structure page by page. Even old books whose content is no longer relevant can serve this purpose. It is true, we are born with our eyes, but they will only open slowly to beauty, much more slowly than one thinks. Nor is it simple to find a knowledgeable person one could ask for guidance. Frequently, a general educational background is lacking, even in the teacher.

"Around 1930 a teacher of fine arts was outraged by the fact that a typographer was expected to know his way around in the history of script of the past two thousand years. By the way, demands in those days were more moderate than they are today. If we were to disregard such standards altogether, however, we would return to barbarism. He who no longer understands what he is doing is becoming as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal."

--"The Importance of Tradition in Typography". The Form of the Book, p. 27-8.
(Image recklessly lifted from Linotype.com)

Brian Eno on Belgians

"I notice two things about Belgians. First, they only get wild with their spectacle frames - Belgian spectacles are spectacular - second, they seem almost universally tainted (blessed?) with personal, regional and national self-doubt - reservation, detachment, melancholy. Almost universally, because the woman in the museum (mid 30s, looked a little like Jill Phillips) had the most genuine and deep smile for all her children (dozens of them) - a smile that only issues from complete sweetness and confidence. What a person to have as a mother. I bet Belgians have very complicated affairs and tortuous, heart-searching marriage breakups.

"But all the same I enjoy these spuddy, craggy, torn-by-conflicting-emotions Flemish faces. When they smile it's like sun in a cold country - so welcome, so sweet. Some fabulous noses. Proposal: A Book of Flemish Noses - coffee-table type, like Roadside Shrines of India."

--A Year with Swollen Appendices, p. 10-11.

Eric Voegelin on the Essence of Christianity, and Our Reaction to It

"The nature of this drive [to pull the Christian eschaton from the divine to the immanent] cannot be discovered by submitting the structure of the fallacy to an even closer analysis. The attention must rather concentrate on what the thinkers achived by their fallacious construction. On this point there is no doubt. They achieved a certainty about the meaning of history, and about their own place in it, which otherwise they would not have had. Certainties, now, are in demand for the purpose of overcoming uncertainties with thier accompaniment of anxiety; and the next question would be: What specific uncertainty was so disturbing that it had to be overcome by the dubious means of fallacious imanentization? One does not have to look far afield for an answer. Uncertainty is the very essence of Christianity. The feeling of security in a "world full of gods" is lost with the gods themselves; when the world is de-divinized, communication with the world-transcendent God is reduced to the tenuous bond of faith, in the sense of Heb. 11:1, as the substance of things hoped for and the proof of things unseen. Ontologically, the subtance of things hoped for is nowhere to be found but in faith itself; and, epitemologically, there is no proof for things unseen but again this very faith. The bond is tenuous, indeed, and it may snap easily. The life of the soul in openness toward God, the waiting, the periods of aridity and dulness, guilt and despondency, contrition and repentance, forsakenness and hope against hope, the silent stirrings of love and grace, trembling on the verge of a certainty which if gained is loss - the very lightness of this fabric may prove too heavy a burden for men who lust for massively possessive experience. The danger of a breakdown of faith to a socially relevant degree, now, will increase in the measure inwhich Christianity is a worldly success, that is, it will grow when Christianity penetrates a civilizational area thoroughly, supported by institutional pressure, and when, at the same time, it undergoes an internal process of spiritualization, of a more complete realization of its essence. The more people are drawn or pressured into the Christian orbit, the greater will be the number among them who do not have the spiritual stamina for the heroic adventure of the soul that is Christianity; and the likeliness of a fall from faith will increase when civilizational progress of education, literacy, and intellectual debate will bring the full seriousness of Christianity to the understanding of ever more individuals. Both of these processes characterized the high Middle Ages. The historical detail is not the present concern; it will be sufficient to refer summarily to the growing town societies with their intense spiritual culture as the primary centers from which the danger radiated into Western society at large."

- The New Science of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952, p. 132-133.
(Image rambunctiously bobbed from http://www.thoughtsongod.com/?p=6008)

Update: 8CHRSAOK

Dear readers, you have spoken! and I owe an apology to both of you. I was mistaken: the New York DMV does allow eight-character license plates for a personalized Empire State plate. The type of plate I referenced is different from the one in the picture. My error lay in believing that personal license plates were all the same, but obviously not.

Apologies also to Mr. Sorkin, Mr. Murdoch, and Ms. Maddow are also in order. Especially to Ms. Maddow: gravely have I insulted thee by lumping you together with Murdoch!

Yes, the post was about getting facts straight, so the irony weighs heavily. I try to teach my students to be accurate in their research, and believe it or not, I try to live up to that myself. But even Homer nods, and I'm nowhere near Homer's stature. Live and learn.

More importantly, though, truth in research presupposes honesty. Fact-checking is just a special case of that; necessary retractions are another. And so I want to reiterate that. Correct me where I'm wrong.

The original topic in the 2008 post had to do with photojournalistic fraud - photoshopping pictures that are supposedly factual - which is not merely a lapse in the fact-checking but a deliberate breach of trust in the media/audience relation. What's so insidious about it, it seems to me, is that it takes advantage of two beliefs: the first one being that "seeing is believing" and the second being "publication = true".

Maybe you're thinking, "Oh come on, don't be so naive. Wake up and pay attention: there are plenty of sharks out there, ready to put one over on you." I'm aware of that. But it doesn't excuse the shysters' conduct. Everyone makes mistakes, that's bad but unavoidable; but not everyone commits fraud, which is really bad and definitely avoidable.

The Virtues of Spinning the Pic

I've posted before about how an increase in the plasticity of the media results in a corresponding decrease in trust of the media. When things like this find their way into books and TV news, it lends temporary credibility to the particular hosts; however, they are followed by a lasting credibility gap in their general domains (read: the media). When you get burned, you'll run from any flame.

But I also said I'd post about the potential benefits of this sort of thing. Here goes.

Basically, the media seem to be teaching the public to discern fakes to a finer degree - thanks to the combination of increased accessibility of information on the one hand, and the media's own lack of use on the other hand. If journalists will not police themselves or each other, it's up to us to play "spot the phony." Which the snarky Internet generation is only too glad to do. By supplying fake pictures, then, the media are potentially educating us in critical thinking and observation - but only inadvertently.

(Now watch, Rupert Murdoch or Rachel Maddow will take this up and use it to spin their errors to their own advantage.)

2LNG2BEREAL

A recent ripple in the news media and blogosphere concerns some material published in the latest book by Andrew Ross Sorkin, and also on his website. A picture appears to show the vanity plate that was spotted in Greenwich, CT. The plates read "2BG2FAIL". On a Porsche. Owned by a banker.

Sounds too good to be true - it would be like them, wouldn't it? But a sharp-eyed reader of The Blue Marble pointed out that the New York DMV allows personalized plates to be no more than six characters long. The alleged vanity plate has eight characters; in other words, it must have been photoshopped. Yet another case of journalists presenting fake evidence. It's things like this that make it unsurprising that folks today are so jaded.

Journalists are people too, I know. But this sort of thing is so politically charged, the lack of attention is inexcusable. The resentment against bankers (which I can't help sharing) runs so high that things like this only feed the fire. Truth would be a better fuel.

The Case of the Case in Point

If there's one thing that's misunderstood about philosophy, it's the thought-experiments. Some are good, some are bad; how do you tell the difference? I want to try and articulate that here, because it can spell the difference between a genuine conversation and a mere bull session. Seems to me that real problems reflect reality (pace Rorty), and their significance is directly proportionate to the amount of discussion they attract. Paradoxes are great examples of philosophical problems, and I do have a pet theory about them. But that's another post. Anyway...

Philosophers sometimes get ridiculed for their examples and thought-experiments - just implausible, its said, implausible or downright silly. There couldn't be any connection to reality, right?

Truth truly is stranger than fiction. Case in point: during my ethics course Monday, we were covering Rawls. In chapter 7 of A Theory of Justice, Rawls distinguishes between the unjust, the bad, and the evil. He cites the example of a person who pursues excessive wealth, pointing out the difference between the unjust man, the bad man, and the evil man (TJ 439). An unjust man commits an act that is unfair to other folks, though the motive would be considered legitimate if kept within limits - say, acquiring money for security. He would be bad if the action was unjust but pursued for its own sake; he enjoyed the mastery of money, for example. Again, that motive would be regarded as legitimate if restrained. He would be evil if he deliberately set out to fleece people because it was unjust to do so; if he enjoyed the unjust act, he'd be evil.

Some of the students asked for another example to clarify the point. "Sure," I said, "consider the case of a person pursuing excessive sex - interpret that any place you wish, it doesn't matter." They considered this to be silly. How could you be regarded as unjust, bad or evil for pursuing excessive sex? Simple: when the libido of one partner outstrips that of the other, and they simply act on it, it is unjust. Depending on the motive, the action could be judged bad or evil. If it were excessively violent, the same principle applies.

By chance a friend of mine posted a news item on Facebook about a British couple that was banned from having sex on account of the excessive noise. The woman appealed the case, and lost. In Rawls's language, their lovemaking was unjust in the sense that they were disturbing the peace. Had it been a party, or a football game, the end result would be the same: too loud.

Unjust indeed. I am so vindicated.

You see, my example was pretty tame as philosophical examples go. There is the brain in a vat, which is a variation on the theme of Descartes's evil genius and Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Such problems pose the question of epistemology - how do you know what's real? - and metaphysics - what is the really real? There's the whole zombie philosophy thing, which has to do with identifying consciousness.

And then you have the medieval philosophers. They came up with some doozies, but we ridicule them because we misunderstand them. For instance, "Did Christ carry a purse or not?" This was an economic question: the Mendicant Order of monks complained about the discrepancy between the poverty of Jesus, their ideal, and the growing wealth of the Church. They had serious intent behind them. Questions about angels - such as whether they were created in beatitude or not - have a great deal to say about rational creatures such as ourselves.

The take-home lesson: don't knock something until you understand what it's really about.

(By the way, the "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is of disputed origin, but it seems only to have become well known because of its use in ridiculing the medievals. Not surprisingly, the only folks citing this question use it lampoon the medievals - without once considering whether there might actually be a real reason for posing such apparently silly questions.)

Now this brings out at least three things:

1. Generally speaking, we don't get to exercise our imagination enough. We could all use the exercise.
2. When an otherwise sane-looking person poses an otherwise ludicrous question in a philosophical debate, there's probably (or, should I say hopefully) good reasons behind their doing so.
3. When considering theoretical questions, ludicrous questions can prove to be remarkably concise ways of taking the inquiry to its extreme - and that's where we really learn something.

The problem this brings out is: how do you know when it's a real philosophical problem, as opposed to a BS question? There seems to be a palpable difference between questions such as

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a sound?

and

What if your tail chased you?

Triumph the insult comic dog - bon jovi
Uploaded by AC310DC. - Watch funny animal videos.

Badly needed comic relief intermezzo

Well, if you're talking with the guy who poses the puzzler, and the reason isn't apparent, ask. If you're reading a text and find said conundrum, look for the rationale in the text itself. Usually it's right there. And if it isn't? Time to hit the library. Do some research, find out everything you can about said person and their circumstances; if they did not write about this themselves, chances are somebody else did. And if that turns up dry? I mean, really turns up with nothing to show for it dry? Then it's time you did some digging into the world of the author. There may well be notions they assume the reader will have; that's not unusual, since folks usually and mainly write for an audience of their own time.

Once you get an explanation, consider the ideas being challenged. Philosophers love to enjoy doubting the most ordinary-looking things. It may be BS, but then again, it may present a genuine problem. How to tell the difference? My reflex answer is basically, you learn by experience. That is, if it kicks up a living doubt in you, you'll be concerned and set out to find an answer. Sometimes the problem can be settled quickly - say, with some detail that was forgotten when the question originally came up. Or it may niggle at you for days, or even months. The greater the irritation of doubt, the more significant the problem relative to our current state of mind.

If a problem seems genuine, a good way of double-checking this is to talk it over with someone. It's happened that I mulled over some difficulty for days, and then it vanished when I brought it up with a friend. Putting the question out in public threw it into a different light, and I discovered that I had simply ignored some basic fact or other; once that was obvious, the doubt went up in smoke *poof*. Then again, a genuine problem will rarely fail to get somebody's attention. Maybe not always immediately, but when it finds an audience that will take it seriously, the problem will show itself to be a window on some avenue of thought that hasn't been covered yet.

How Scientific Can Philosophy Be? or, Scientific Progress Really Does Go Boink On Occasion

This was originally going to be a comment; it only seemed to be fair to talk directly to someone when giving feedback. But since the site wouldn't let me post it (no idea why)...here it comes.

A study done recently claims that people tend not to assume an objective standard in morality. The writers of the study argue that, contrary to the view of many philosophers, most normal people have a fairly relativistic view of ethics. The conclusion isn't what I have a beef with; it's the method of arriving at that conclusion that irks me.

The experiment is as follows. Subjects were asked to imagine two people who are asked to evaluate a situation involving killing. One of these hypothetical people is a college student, the other is (a) also a college student, (b) from an Amazonian culture, or (c) a cruel extraterrestrial race. In this imaginary scenario, one person thinks the act is morally permissible, the other thinks it's morally wrong. The subjects were then asked whether the hypothetical evaluators would agree or disagree in terms of their moral judgment.

Depending on how closely related the two speculative people are, the subjects responded variously. In the case of (a) two college students from the same campus, they were imagined to agree. In (b) a college student and an Amazon, they were imagined to be less in agreement. In the case of (c), a college student and Evil ET, the imagined level of agreement was even lower.

In other words, a few college students in philosophy courses believe that between two individuals, the level of agreement is inversely proportional to the closeness of the similarity of those two individuals. The greater the difference between cultures, the greater the difference of agreement on ethical issues.

I'm afraid the experiment seems quite flawed. Leaving aside the more general problem of the extent to which statistics should determine how we actually think about ethical questions (doesn't every logic textbook consider the argumentum ad populum to be a fallacy? Har-har); leaving aside the even more serious problem of the extent that those numbers should influence how we ought to think about such problems, there are serious difficulties with the experiment presented here.

Basically, the actual sample is not representative - of anything, let alone of "ordinary folks." All the participants were students taking philosophy courses at one college. Hardly the average Joe. And it was a small sample at that: only 223. Let's put that into perspective. In 2006-7 alone there were 11,969 philosophy BAs awarded. This comes from a total number of 1,524,092 BAs awarded in that year. (Figures taken from the National Center for Educational Statistics.) The study doesn't specify whether all the subjects were philosophy majors, but for the sake of perspective and generosity, let's assume they are. And because we're feeling extra generous today, let's assume that all the undergrads completed their studies.

In other words, the sample consisted of 1.45 x 10^-4 of the total undergrad population. This out of an estimated general population of 301.6 million. Assuming the number didn't rise between then and now, this means the sample would only account for less than 2% of the philosophy undergrad population, which itself constitutes less than 1% of the total undergrad population. In the US. (The Census Bureau's estimate for 2007 can be found here; world population figures taken from the Population Reference Bureau.)

That means the study yields a sample of 7.4 x 10^-7 of the US population, or 3.38 x10^-8 of the world's population - in a snapshot of the world's history. Representative it ain't.

Now I confess to knowing little about what experimental philosophy is up to. But if it's trying to be more scientific about philosophy by collecting data, it has to be more scientific in its data collection than is presented here. If a physicist published such dismally designed research, she'd be laughed out of court. Philosophers have been criticized for their "unscientific armchair theorizing." Experimental philosophy is attempting to use scientific methods of gathering information. Put simply, it's doubly important for philosophers to do the work right: to curry favor with scientists and the broader community that esteems natural science so highly. Take a tip from them - get bigger, more representative samples.

Ode to Turkish Coffee

Today's post is half-and-half: one part serious, the other not so much. I'm not sure myself how seriously it should be taken, so - sensitive or snobbish? delicate or dorky? You be the judge. (Oh, and it'll morph like a Wikipedia entry, so mind the timestamp when you cite me for your term paper.)

I want to make a case for the supremacy of Turkish coffee; I'll do this by way of analysis of the idea of civilization. If there ever was a pretentious-sounding word, it's "civilized." With that one word (or its negation) you can piss on anything you want, verbally speaking:

"He doesn't wash his hands? How uncivilized."

"Oh, you can't eat with utensils - use your fingers, like civilized people."

I'm no sociologist, but it seems to me that civilization is marked by at least two things: gratuitous objects and exercise of self-control. And I want to say that it's not merely a matter of one or the other, but the instances of both occurring in an object - something you lovingly devote a fair amount of effort to, even though it serves no purpose beyond its own existence. When, say, you start playing with the decor just because you can, that strikes me as one of those things: there's no reason to move the furniture around except to stave off boredom. But see? you can afford to be bored by the decor.

Let me take coffee as one of those indexes of civilization. If I'm right about all this, the highest form would be Turkish coffee.

Think about it: you don't need coffee to begin with, but there it is, waiting for you to cradle in your hands. Doesn't that feel nice? There's no nutritional value in coffee; we got along just fine without it. So right there we've got something totally useless. "But I need it to stay awake!" you protest. Fine, have a Red Bull then. Mmmm, cough syrup with a kick. And you can chug it.

Too much Red Bull?

We like fast. (How else can you justify the fast food feed bag, even as a joke?) Now you can run by a Starbucks for a triple-shot skim-milk cappuccino - wet or dry - or you can go in some drive-thru joint and grab a paper cuppa. And it's all fast. But a Turkish coffee can't be made fast. You could easily automate it, but you can't speed it up much: its essence is precisely the process of slowly heating up the brew, stopping just short of a full boil - three times. To make good Turkish coffee, you have to be patient.

And even when you get it in your hands, you have to be patient. First you wait - some more - to let the fine coffee silt settle. Then when you do drink the coffee, you can't just swill it down: it's one sip at a time. At best you can hasten slowly. But why would anyone want to hurry down a cup of this deep, rich, gratuitous drink?

This sort of patience is an exercise in delayed gratification - or, put another way, self-control. Little kids think that way: more is better, so a lot more must be a lot better. Faster is better here, so it must be better everywhere, and the faster the better.

Self-control seems generally to be considered the path to quality. Ask any artist or athlete, they'll tell you it takes a lot of work and discipline to make it. You've heard it all before: "Talent will only take you so far; to go that extra mile, you gotta work."

Have I learned this valuable lesson? Not fully, I have to confess; there are plenty of times I've gone for the quick-and-easy way out. I need more practice. Hmmm. Think I'll have me another Turkish coffee. It's good practice.

(Images perilously purloined from http://www.flickr.com/photos/blhphotography/501306828/ and http://www.troys-drums.com/archive/2006_10_01_troys-drums.htm)

Will Pay to Work for Free

Un-friggin-believable this is, if true.

According to mediabistro.com, Room to Grow is celebrating its 10th anniversary at Christie's in NYC. Among the festivities: internships at Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone to be auctioned off. In other words, you can buy your way into an unpaid temporary position.

Just for fun - OK, and to procrastinate a little - I did some snooping. Room to Grow is indeed having their wing-ding at Christie's, and indeed there is an auction. But what they're auctioning isn't disclosed on the website. If it turns out to be true, though, that's a bit troublesome to me.

It wouldn't be the first time: in May the Associated Press reported that a man got an internship at GQ Magazine for his son. How? By paying more than $30,000 - on EBay.

Unless this is common practice, I take this as a bad sign. And if it is common practice, it seems like a pretty iffy one. My understanding was always that internships (and paid jobs) were landed on the basis of merit, not moolah. Readers, I'm appealing to both of you to enlighten me on this point.

In Memoriam: Aimee Alcarez Cowan (1975-2008)

I was blessed to know her in my first two years at TMC. I heard how she did right, teaching at Tufts - she must've been a good professor. Today she passed away. A bright little light has gone out, but I was lucky enough to see. I was lucky enough to be her friend. My prayers go out to her family and friends, but so do my memories. We've all been blessed to know her.



Brian Eno and Harold Budd, "Late October"

Awakenings

I just realized something. In 1988 I was a god-damn no-good dope-smokin' tie-dye wearing long-haired starry-eyed hippie freak.

Well, twenty years later I don't smoke - anything. I don't wear tie-dyes anymore, and my hair's not so long.

So I guess I look different.

Do I regret any of it? Am I ashamed?

Not on your fuckin' life.

Links, links, links

I don't have time for this, but I'm gonna take time anyway. It can't be said strongly enough: Tuesday was one of the biggest days in recent history, not just American history but world history.

Whatever I say really can't do justice to the significance of all this; instead let me offer links to various thinks...Obama said this was a long time coming - just ask Amanda Jones. Courtesy of Agent Intellect, who got it courtesy of Instapundit. Parasitic, these blogs.) The Onion, known for its satire, manages to tell the truth here and here.

For those who think all the racist bigots have gun racks in their pick-em-up trucks - and why the election is so important - check out this by Untravel, which took place right here in so-called cultured Europe, and his friend's little encounter in Moscow. (Stupidity knows no bounds, probably because it can't read a map.) Agent Intellect has rightly said that we should pray for Obama; he couldn't be more correct.

Lots of people have great expectations for Obama; some doubt he'll do much in the Oval Office. I think this: he's there. Obama. Is. There. And that speaks volumes, both for him and the nation that elected him. Never mind quibbles about his being half-black; get real, it doesn't matter. What does matter is - something is happening...

Out of the Mouths of Babes

"Sweetheart, what do you want for your birthday?"

"A president that doesn't suck."

"That's nice."

Done? Well, I'm getting close...

Please accept my apologies, dear readers; I don't want either of you to think I'd been ignoring you. The dissertation is almost finished (yay!), but it's going to take a lot of work (boo!), which means I have no time to blog (hiss!).

One of you - or both, I forget - might've been told the work was almost done. And I forget how many times I might've told you that. Really, I must sound like Bullwinkle...hey, now here's something I hope you really like!

Something good had to come out of the financial meltdown

This must be read to be believed.

Hedge fund investor Andrew Lahde retired in style at 37, leaving behind the ripest farewell letter you ever saw. You can read the whole letter here. The whole financial sector gets lambasted, from Lahde's rivals (whom he candidly calls "idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale and then the Harvard MBA") right down to their very lifestyle.

It's only right that somebody as jaded as Mr. Lahde would go into a field he would prefer not to, become one of the players and succeeds wildly by playing the game to the hilt, and then reveal the game for the dysfunctional burning house it is. It's too bad the word could only come out of the ashes.

I can't say the financial sector is inherently evil; that seems more ideological than factual. But certainly there were folks who thought they could work the system in their favor. And the consequences of such short-term thinking, by so many people, came together in an awful way. They were in it for the money, and so was Lahde. The difference: Lahde knew what he was about, and he knew what the game was all about. His fallout rivals knew neither.

Moo

Um, this was just too utterly bizarre - had to post a link to this little animation I ran across:



Wow.

Another chapter in the cautionary tale that is moi

Here's something I just figured out; I wish I'd learned it sooner, but better late than never. Hopefully it'll help you too, either by making you recognize the problem in yourself or by spurring you to identify the root of your problem. And we all have problems.

One of my problems is procrastination. Particularly, as Eliot so nicely put it, "Distracted from distractions by distractions." Here I am, sitting in my dank little studio, the rough draft of my dissertation sitting before me. The deadline hangs over my head like the sword of Damocles. And I'm surfing the Internet. Do I realize this? Not always: sometimes it only hits me that two hours have slipped by while giggling my way through LOLCats. (Yes, it's true - I love that stuff.) Of course the time can't be recovered, so I have no choice but to drag my discouraged ass away from the monitor and...work. But it's 11pm or whatever, so no point.

Last night I ran across two long paragraphs that need serious work. Not putting the same material into new words, but recasting the whole damn thing from scratch. It went in the direction I wanted it to go, but the elements were wrong and the formulation unclear. I have to rewrite it from the ground up. - Ouch. (I should be used to it by now, having rewritten half a chapter already. But apparently some things you just don't get used to.) Did I start that rewriting? No, I checked my email. And Facebook. And did searches on authors that have no relevance whatsoever to my dissertation. In between Web pages, I'd jot down something on the back of an envelope, vaguely dissertation-related. But you can't get anything done that way. As soon as I realized the absurdity of it all, I packed it in. It was 11pm, and I couldn't think straight, so I just went to bed - not that I got any sleep.

Today I picked up where I'd left off, and got through a few more pages. This time I tried to work out a logical question: why conditionals are asymmetrical. Why does P imply Q, but not the other way around? The truth table describes the asymmetry, it doesn't explain it. I finally got it (it has to do with dependence), but my scribblings and citations didn't quite bear out. Hmmm...what about those files I've been meaning to organize?

And then it hit me *dork!*: I distract myself when something doesn't fulfil my expectations. Since nobody's around to kick my ass back on track, two hours can easily get lost before I know what happened. It's like I said, "Oh, that didn't work. Screw it." The rational response would be to say, "OK, why didn't it work out? What's the real answer, as opposed to the one I'd believed?" Then and only then would I stand to learn something new, better than what I'd thought before.

So now it comes down to this: I'll find a way to make a habit of asking that question whenever experience runs counter to my expectations. Or die trying. (Better the former than the latter.) It's not my only problem, but it'll be one less to worry about when I get over it.

There's a lesson here. (I dislike moralizing, but this seems important enough to add.) If you've got the same kind of problem, take up the same solution. But even if you don't distract yourself when events let you down, you probably have other problems you need to solve. For what it's worth, I'm suggesting you keep watch for them. Find that nasty habit - big or little, it doesn't matter. Dig up the reason why you do it, and find a way to get yourself back on track. You'll be glad you did. Because you'll discover - no, experience a bit more of the real meaning of "The truth will set you free." You don't have to be religious to know how true that statement is.

Blog for your life

Dear readers, allow me to invite both of you over to a new blog of mine, CriticalFitness. I've wanted to put that together for some time, and have decided to take the plunge. Hope you enjoy it!