home
on exploration, introspection and creation

Archive for January, 2010

Immortality (part I)

Saturday, January 30th, 2010

A long time ago I had a theory that seemed completely plausible to me. I didn’t really believe it but I was enticed by the idea that it couldn’t be disproven.

I could be immortal. Sure, I see people around me die and I know that my cells have a finite life, but other than that I have no definite proof that I will die. In fact, I could go through many events in life when the universe bifurcates; I die in one of them but my consciousness travels along the path of a living me. This would explain why I perceive other people die. As I get older, these events may be happening more and more frequently (which is why I don’t really see people who are 200 years old). In fact, I may have just died to one version of you all and I don’t even know it.

I haven’t given this much thought so I’m sure this theory has some fatal flaw. I like it though — it’s my first theory of an afterlife and indirectly it influenced my current belief–more about that later.

Rapid feedback systems

Saturday, January 30th, 2010

There is a class of systems that offer rapid feedback to the operator, that is, an adjustment in the way they are controlled is very quickly reflected in the output of the system.

Take driving, for example. You press the accelerator pedal (for good reasons I’ve stopped calling it the “gas” pedal) and the car goes faster. You turn the steering wheel a little and the car turns. For safety reasons, such a rapid feedback system is so natural that it’s necessary — it needs to be as natural to our instincts as possible (so that, when, say, a cat jumps out on the road, you can swerve and not hit it). But safety reasons aside, it’s also a great way to allow people to become good drivers quickly (you could imagine an alternative way to control a car, for example one in which you point to where you want the car to go. While terrible for many reasons, such a mechanism would probably take much longer to master).

I think this explains why people find it relatively hard to play golf well — the feedback is painfully slow (in fact, it’s so slow that special vehicles were invented to try to make it faster–or maybe it’s because those playing golf hate to walk–another reason why golf isn’t really a sport).

This also explains why an RC helicopter is more difficult to master than an RC car (I think more so than the fact that a helicopter involves more complex controls).

It’s useful to use this principle when designing really any kind of system. For example, wouldn’t kids find it much easier to learn to play the piano if the correct next key were a little easier to press (or, if that’s too easy–i.e. would make people lazy and therefore prevent them from learning–at least all notes of a particular musical key, like B flat, were a little easier to press).

Note that it such a system doesn’t necessarily have to be natural in the sense of being an extension of our muscles or senses. Cooking (I mean preparing the entire dish, not figuring out that you’ve burnt a steak) doesn’t offer a particularly quick feedback. Fortunately, its quality is fairly insensitive to the inputs (it takes a lot of mistakes–or a big one mistake–to make a dish taste awful) but we’d be much better cooks if ingredients changed color based on the amount of salt we added.

How to Design an Armchair

Monday, January 25th, 2010

Over the weekend, I fell asleep in an armchair. There is really no good position when you’re constrained to a chair. Eventually I settled on a fetal position across the chair, using one arm as a pillow and the other as support for my feet.

I think an excellently-designed armchair should include this use case. In other words, I’d design an armchair so that its oblique cross-section makes for a comfy bed.

Earning a PhD

Monday, January 25th, 2010

There are codified ways of earning your PhD. But the truth is that you really only earn your PhD when you realize the futility of what you have been doing for the past several years.

I should go back to school and enter a PhD program in Philosophy. The subject of my dissertation would be the idea behind earning PhDs. Of course I’d realize nobody cares about how to earn a PhD. So I can only earn my PhD if I fail to show up to defend my dissertation.

Moderation

Monday, January 25th, 2010

Moderation is best when enjoyed in moderation.

(I’m looking at those who believe that everything in life should be enjoyed in moderation)

A New Punctuation Mark

Monday, January 18th, 2010

One of my miniprojects was to come up with a genuine new punctuation mark (although not necessarily a new glyph). And the other while I was texting my friend, I had an idea. It’s not the most original of all marks but I liked the moment of epiphany. I also did a brief search and didn’t find this mark defined already (even with a different definition than mine), which was actually surprising.

That mark is a twoperiod. It consists of two periods spaced out about one-third em from each other. It’s meant to convey a confirmation of another speaker’s statement but with an undertone of deeper consequence that brings about a feeling in the speaker using it. The feeling can be negative, such as guilt or sadness, or a positive, such as pride. Often it’s also used to convey a shared context that is not appropriate to bring up (or does not need to be brought up). For example, the following dialogue makes the use of a twoperiod appropriate:

A: What are you doing tonight?
B: Going gambling.
A: Wow. Two nights in a row?
B: I have a problem.
A: I know..

Speaker A uses a twoperiod because he or she not only has additional information about speaker B, but also that information is in some way embarrassing or funny. Perhaps speaker B borrowed a lot of money from speaker A and never paid it back. Or speaker A actually has the same problem.

Note that a different punctuation mark would not quite be appropriate here: a period would convey the information but not the subtext. An ellipsis would normally indicate that speaker A is disappointed (one can visualize speaker A sighing when he/she says “I know…”). Instead, speaker A simply refers to some other context and makes a statement “between the lines” at the same time.

A twoperiod may be accompanied with a slightly rising pitch of the syllable immediate preceding it (as opposed to the ellipsis that would normally mean a lower pitch for the last syllable or the last word).

Good Requirements

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

At work I deal a lot with people who need things, that is, they have requirements. But most people mix requirements and design (presumably because everyone is a freaking problem solver), that is, they often tell me how they want something done, not what they want.

Pause here and consider how many times you’ve committed this error. Don’t think about work only, we present requirements to others all the time. Like when you ask your bank for something. Or when you ask your friend for a favor.

The danger in doing so, of course, is that by providing a design you’re constraining whoever will address your requirement (what if there is several ways to get what you want done and you’re forcing them down one path for no reason which may be costly?) and–more importantly–that you’re not really thinking about what it is you truly want.

A good tactic to address this problem, once you detect it, is to explicitly ask whoever gives you requirements to tell you what they want and not how they want you to do this.

An even better tactic that I started using is to ask them what they don’t want. I found that when I phrased it that way, people moved away from the how.

Skills

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Throughout your employment, you should hone two sets of skills: those specific to your job, and generic, life skills. The former allows you to stay employed; the latter allows you to find new employment.

Tools and Libraries

Sunday, January 10th, 2010

Deep connection for goal achievement

Saturday, January 9th, 2010

I had one of those rare “aha” moments over the holidays. Whenever I get a large collection of music, I sift through it and keep the music that I like. For a long time I used a method that helped me extract the useful characteristics of a song without actually listening to the whole song–say, I’d listen to the first 10 seconds, then 5 seconds starting one minute in, and fast-forwarded to the chorus. This would give me an idea about the song; hopefully enough of an idea for me to make a decision whether I want to keep it.

The problem with this approach is that it’s too sensitive to how I feel and what state of mind I’m in. Sometimes the song doesn’t have an interesting chorus at which point I may reject some songs that I should keep.

So that one day over the holidays, I was listening to one of the songs and suddenly, out of nowhere, the song instantaneously felt familiar. I felt at that instant that I know exactly what song it is. I felt that I knew everything about it. It was an unexpected revelation. I happened to fast-forward to some part about 30 seconds from the end of the song. There wasn’t even anything particular about those few seconds that I had listened to. But I knew instantaneously whether I like the song or not. Even better, I knew exactly in what moods I’d like it the most. I felt a deep connection with the song. My old way of understanding songs suddenly felt silly. How superficial my algorithm has been!

I realized how many things that I was doing had only a superficial connection to whatever goal I was trying to achieve. Take reading, for example. It’s easy to think that you’re reading “well” — after all, your eyes fall on every word, you comprehend the plot and maybe you can even predict what’s going to happen next. But are you really reading the book? Are you getting something meaningful out of the activity? Reading poems is probably an even more apparent example… many of us have read poems and we think we understand them. We can talk about them, about how they make us feel. We think we crossed a kind of magical threshold–we’re now in the inner circle of those who know.

The truth is that we don’t know half of it. We haven’t connected with the book, or with the poem deeply. It’s one thing to know how the poem makes you feel; it’s another to feel the poem permeate our bodies. It’s almost as if the poem fused with us, we’re now richer by a miniscule, infinitesimal amount, but this speck is also infinitely rich.

It’s difficult to describe the kind of feeling you get if you connect with something at a true, deep level. In fact, almost by definition there is no way to grasp this moment with any kind of scientific approach; it’s pure art. And while it usually manifests itself with works of art, I realized that any goal can be internalized in such a way. In fact, this is the only way that guarantees that you truly achieve your goal. Of course, the difficulty is precisely this lack of preciseness that characterizes the feeling–there’s no prescription for how to achieve this clarity. Sometimes the feeling comes after you experience something for 5 seconds. Sometimes you can experience it in its entirety over and over again and the feeling will not come.

It should come to no surprise that we form this superficial connection with goals all the time. We do this when we work out, when we communicate with others, when we cook. It’s definitely easier to do because we’re all great imitators. Mechanistic things are what the more fundamental parts of our brain react to, and–let’s face it–those parts have been with us for much longer.

But if you realize that taking a different, imprecise, unscientific approach to achieving goals results in a much more complete and meaningful goal achievement, you will open your mind to the possibility of true enlightenment.