Archive for the ‘reductions’ Category
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011
A friend of mine suggested that as the one question he likes asking people he interviews for any kind of technology job. I think it’s a great question because it gets at an important characteristic of someone I would like to work with — passion and the depth of thought. Having a favorite algorithm requires you not only to know a bunch of algorithms, but also to have thought about them and used them enough to have an opinion. Just like a favorite song, your favorite algorithm is probably not going to be the one that everyone learns in their first year of CS education, or one that everyone uses every day. And knowing why it’s a favorite algorithm reveals a lot about how someone thinks about computing.
What’s your favorite algorithm?
Posted in art, comparisons, for reflection, reductions, technology, whatis | 3 Comments »
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011
Our voice may undergo slight variations all the time but it remains pretty much unchanged for the majority of our adult life. Is it just a fluke, or are there good reasons for that? For example, would a voice that’s easily recognizable help our offspring find us more easily?
Either way, it’s a good thing for the music industry; I can hear Roger Waters sing at a concert thirty years after he recorded an album and have an authentic experience!
Posted in changes/cyclical, origins, reductions | No Comments »
Thursday, December 30th, 2010
We assimilate information in varying degrees. I can identify four fundamental stages, from least to most permanent and effective. It’s important to be aware of this spectrum (and of the differences between the stages) because we often make incorrect assumptions about our understanding of something (and, consequently, our ability to use that understanding).
- Reception — this is a necessary condition for information assimilation, but it is almost never sufficient. We need to receive the information (see it, hear it, etc.) but if we don’t do anything with it, our brain will simply filter it out. We can hear things, but if we don’t pay attention to what we hear, we will not absorb any of the information — it will appear in our subconscious and disappear as soon as we context switch into anything else that engages us.
- Focus — by listening (as opposed to just hearing), we tell our brain to start processing the information. Just focusing on it, however, is not indicative of a high absorption rate: our brains need to process it in a way that makes the information fit in with our thought framework. This is the idea behind the next stage.
- Understand — if we process the information and convince ourselves that it fits in with the rest of our world models, we understand it now. This is where most people end their assimilation process. In other words, when quizzed, they can explain the information; it makes sense to them; when asked if it applies to a particular circumstance, they can provide the correct answer. However, this is reactive behavior — just understanding is most times not sufficient to naturally pattern match and proactively know when the information is relevant. For example, we can understand what the word obsequious means but we won’t be able to produce it when we need to because understanding is not sufficient. We need a stronger form of assimilation.
- Internalizion — this I believe to be the final stage of assimilation. Once we’ve internalized something, it becomes a natural part of our world model. We can produce it on demand; we know when to produce it; it becomes natural to us. Usually long exposure to something allows us to internalize it. For example, people understand the mechanics of driving pretty quickly but it takes practice to internalize the rules, guidelines, and systems they’ve learned so that driving can become natural, almost common-sensical.
Most of us stop at understanding, which is dangerous because it provides a shallow form of assimilation. THe information they’ve understood is not readily available. It’s important to be aware of the distinction between understanding and internalization, and to know when understanding alone is simply not going to cut it.
Posted in comparisons, human nature, principles, reductions | No Comments »
Wednesday, December 8th, 2010
The most brilliant people do the fewest things. Pick few things to do, and do them well.
Posted in for reflection, lifehacks, reductions, things everyone should do | No Comments »
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010
Democracy is an ingenious way of giving the masses an impression of power.
Posted in clever, for reflection, reductions, whatis | No Comments »
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010
An Introvert conceals feelings. An Extrovert confuses them.
Posted in art, comparisons, for reflection, reductions, whatis | No Comments »
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010
Wisdom is a stream of consequences of the decisions we’ve made.
Posted in art, for reflection, reductions, whatis | No Comments »
Monday, December 6th, 2010
What if a billion universes have been created but only this one features beings that are able to introspect? — If that were the case, everything we hold dear and special (such as evolution, life, intelligence) is just dumb luck.
Posted in discovery, origins, reductions | No Comments »
Saturday, December 4th, 2010
Many of us believe in the scientific method: a wonderfully simple concept of postulating hypotheses that attempt to generate answers to questions about the world and using observations to reject the hypotheses that don’t work. Note that the scientific method says nothing about which theories are correct: it can only reject those which are certainly incorrect.
Science has gotten fairly obscure at this point, with strange effects that permit particles to pass through walls (but only sometimes) and that allow them to exist in multiple places at the same time. Science hypothesizes at this point that the Universe is made up of eleven or more dimensions, many of them are tiny, curled up strings. There are membranes traveling through the Universe’s five dimensions that periodically create the Big Bang. At this point, if you step back, the belief that the Universe was created by one being may begin to seem like a saner alternative. Are we stepping back and questioning what our hypotheses are or are we complacent seeing complex mathematical formulae (whose sole understanding (let alone derivation) requires years of specialized training) that govern simple world phenomena?
What if everything we know about the Universe is wrong? How does the scientific method help us jump out of a local maximum that seems to explain some of our observations but becomes prohibitively more and more complex in an attempt to patch the holes it continues to expose?
The problem is that it doesn’t.
Posted in for reflection, origins, reductions | No Comments »
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010
The idea of the Ten Commandments is a great one. It attempts to distill a set of ethical norms interwoven with principles of the fledging new monotheistic religion into a small, easy-to-remember set of fundamental rules. The Ten Commandments can be memorized, recited, referred to by number, which makes them a great framework for normalizing social behavior.
Let’s analyze them one by one.
- No false gods. This is a great one: it epitomizes the most unique aspect of the religion, the idea of a single God. But it transcends religion — it establishes the basis for obedience, the credibility of religion. It enables other commandments. If there was only one rule, that would be it. It’s like saying, “Rule 1: Follow all the rules,” and by emphasizing it (after all, it’s the first of the Ten Commandments) it provides a strong bond and creates shared context that’s easy to understand. This rule makes it very hard to dilute it or create offshoots: if there is only one God, you can’t create a more powerful one to win over believers (in fact, after the idea of a single God becomes so engrained in everyone, the only way to compete is to focus on God’s representative on Earth, or later vary the interpretations of God’s writings). More importantly, it centralizes power (one God means one place of worship) which becomes crucial later in the evolution of organized religion.
- No names in vain. At first I found this a strange rule. First of all, why would anyone care if I shouted God’s name for no good reason? And if they did, why should it occupy such an important place, the second of the ten? I think just as the purpose of the first Commandment is to establish credibility, the primary purpose of the second one is to establish hierarchy. Making the name, and thus its use, special — holy, illustrates God’s place as extreme (God is no longer some minor deity). It’s an incredibly important Commandment because it shapes how religion is interpreted by its believers in everyday life — it creates God that must be feared and loved, God that demands, God that punishes. But it also justifies the organized institution behind God (after all, someone needs to be cleared to use God’s name). The focus on language as an important fabric that facilities the experience of coexistence with God is crucial too, because it further ensures the centralization of power (ensures it is focused in the hands of those who wield the Word well).
- Honor your mother and father. This Commandment begins a series of ethical norms. It also establishes hierarchy, but unlike the previous one, it deals with a social one, not a theological one. It introduces the concept of respect and position in society. It is a strong reason why the society it creates is stable — if esteem for the elders is almost as important as esteem for God, the young will less likely revolt against the status quo. It also makes life holy: you are to respect somebody solely because of the fact that they gave you birth and brought you up.
- Respect the Sabbath. Another Commandment that calls for respect, but it’s different in that it asks for respect of a structure (a particular schedule) rather than a deity or a person. It forces the believers to stay connected to their spirituality, to remain believers (and as history shows, the lack of a connection with the religion creates schism). This provides further stability to the religion.
At first glance, the third and the fourth Commandments may seem reversed (wouldn’t #4 follow logically from #2?). The need for social stability and strong unbringing was probably deemed more important (and more impactful) than the need for the constancy of religious worship. After all, if you respect your parents, they can teach you the values better than a list of Commandments can.
- Don’t kill. This is the first of the Commandments that establish social norms, and, understandably, it focuses on the importance of life (and the irreversability of death). I think the reason it’s a Commandment may have to do with the difficulty of enforcing this rule early on. I’m not sure it necessarily establishes the sanctity of life.
- No adultery. Is it really that important? Compared with the other ones it seems strange un-lofty. It’s a norm that is certainly murky (less black-and-white than killing a person) but maybe it’s precisely why it’s been included. It creates a society with higher norms than other societies, a more civilized one. It is a rudimentary form of social protection. Of course, in addition to this, it further enables the creation of a stable, conservative society.
- Don’t steal. The Commandment establishes the importance of property, and, again, is probably a good rule to include as coming from God as it’s fairly difficult to enforce.
- Don’t lie. Actually, the Commandment is more specific — it tells you not to bear a false witness against your neighbor — which in my view points to the fact that not all lying is bad (a pretty progressive thought!). Truth-telling is notoriously difficult to enforce so it makes sense why it would become a Commandment.
- Don’t desire your neighbor’s wife…. This I’ve always been baffled by. It’s a rather stringent moral rule that addresses one’s desires (rather than actions). Why curb the desires? It seems preventive, extremely conservative, doesn’t fit with the other commandments, unless one considers that actions are borne from thoughts and the Commandment is really trying to force you to think (and thus be) morally not just behave that way. Morality that’s been internalized is much stronger than one that is an outcome of fear of punishment.
- …or any other thing. Really? Why separate it from the previous one? Was it just added because it made a nice set of 10 (a natural size since we have 10 fingers)? It seems dangerous because while desiring of another’s wife is naturally frowned upon, the rule that comes from God that penetrates all thoughts of desire, even envy, seems too stringent and as a result ineffective.
In general, the Commandments are a wonderfully condensed mixture of rules that establish the religion (in terms of its uniqueness–thus stability–but also its role in everyone’s lives, and its self-preservative properties), the social order, and moral norms. It’s not surprising that they aided in the perpetuation of a very strong and stable religion and a society intrinsically linked to it.
Posted in for reflection, human nature, lists, origins, reductions | No Comments »