I like going out at night. There's a certain freedom to it. Sometimes I stop by a 24 hour place like a MacD's at 3am to snack and read a book. However, every time I do this, I cannot help but notice the lonely humans everywhere. Now, it may seem like I am lonely myself, doing things like sit around with a book in the middle of the night. But then again I am there for the purpose of unwinding. What I see is a whole bunch of humans sleeping at the tables or just sitting there apparently deep in thought. Knowing what I know about humans, they're probably not very happy about their lives since most would probably be lying in bed at home instead of sleeping at some fast food joint.
I am reminded of my late friend (whose death anniversary will come around in a couple weeks) and that was the exact same place I last met her before she finally successfully offed herself. She was sitting there in the middle of the night as well, frightened of her hallucinations, and her mom was coming later in the night to pick her up. Tragedy, really, but I still believe she's better off dead since she wasn't going to get any real help. Truly, that's a better place to be for some humans.
Back to the living lonelies, I look at them sleeping at the eatery and think...wow are they homeless? Do they have nowhere else to go to? Or are they just so tired that they fall asleep after a late night supper? As I walk home I see more humans sleeping on the benches around my area, and think the same thing. It is impossible to tell if they are truly vagabonds (they don't look the part) or they're just out there having a cooler rest out in the open. I'll probably never know.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
The Bane Of Design
The rapid advancement of technology should help design in theory. More options become available, limitations fade away, design can be free to operate without constraints. In theory, the technology we have today should have made a whole slew of truly creative intellectual property. Yet, it seems this is not so.
The whole hypersaturated market of virtually identical first person shooter games and movies like John Carter attest to this. Something has gone wrong, that the new affordances of technology aren't fostering increased creativity, but seem to have reduced it instead. My take is that technology has become a form of creativity in and of itself, where the eye candy and special effects have led to complacency. Where one was bound by massive constraints just 2 decades ago, forcing creative thinking around technological limitations, now one simply slaps a pretty new skin on a stinking old carcass and calls it a whole new creation. Goodness gracious me.
Designers and other creative people need to find their way out of this rut, to stimulate themselves to think outside the box that superior presentation technology has ironically locked them into. To fail to see this is to allow technology to become the bane of design.
The whole hypersaturated market of virtually identical first person shooter games and movies like John Carter attest to this. Something has gone wrong, that the new affordances of technology aren't fostering increased creativity, but seem to have reduced it instead. My take is that technology has become a form of creativity in and of itself, where the eye candy and special effects have led to complacency. Where one was bound by massive constraints just 2 decades ago, forcing creative thinking around technological limitations, now one simply slaps a pretty new skin on a stinking old carcass and calls it a whole new creation. Goodness gracious me.
Designers and other creative people need to find their way out of this rut, to stimulate themselves to think outside the box that superior presentation technology has ironically locked them into. To fail to see this is to allow technology to become the bane of design.
Thursday, March 08, 2012
John Carter
John Carter. Interplanetary traveler, Martian loyalist, tycoon. An epic love story that spans two planets, with the lives of everyone concerned in peril were it not for the actions of our intrepid hero. One would be led to expect that the movie would be spectacular. Unfortunately, it was not.
John Carter is a typical story of a traveler who is thrown into a foreign culture, struggles to assimilate, but eventually manages to help protect it against its foes. Of course, the hero always tries to return to that culture in the end. Last Samurai, Dances With Wolves, etc etc. It's a common enough narrative, and is not inherently original in any form. What makes such a narrative memorable and truly enjoyable is the immersion where the viewers think they understand what's going on, what the cultures stand for, and wind up rooting for the hero. This was not to be.
The movie falls short when it substitutes CGI for narrative, where the foreign culture happens to be alien looking beings, and the enemy is just another form of human. On Mars. Yet, throughout the narrative, it is unclear just why they are fighting, why it's even possible for an earthling to romance a martian, what the stakes of the fighting truly are, and basically anything that matters that isn't part of the romance or combat. None of these are made clear in the story.
The overall incoherence of the narrative prevents the viewer from truly appreciating the high budget production, and it is actually disgusting to see all that money splurged to basically reskin an old tale without adding anything particularly special. I'd say this movie deserves a 4/10.
John Carter is a typical story of a traveler who is thrown into a foreign culture, struggles to assimilate, but eventually manages to help protect it against its foes. Of course, the hero always tries to return to that culture in the end. Last Samurai, Dances With Wolves, etc etc. It's a common enough narrative, and is not inherently original in any form. What makes such a narrative memorable and truly enjoyable is the immersion where the viewers think they understand what's going on, what the cultures stand for, and wind up rooting for the hero. This was not to be.
The movie falls short when it substitutes CGI for narrative, where the foreign culture happens to be alien looking beings, and the enemy is just another form of human. On Mars. Yet, throughout the narrative, it is unclear just why they are fighting, why it's even possible for an earthling to romance a martian, what the stakes of the fighting truly are, and basically anything that matters that isn't part of the romance or combat. None of these are made clear in the story.
The overall incoherence of the narrative prevents the viewer from truly appreciating the high budget production, and it is actually disgusting to see all that money splurged to basically reskin an old tale without adding anything particularly special. I'd say this movie deserves a 4/10.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
The Giggle Factor
Society has a powerful conformity mechanism, and it's called the giggle factor. Anything that lies outside the common boundaries of the masses will be laughed out of the house. As a result, the socially oriented humans will be inclined to avoid incurring the wrath of the giggle factor anytime soon.
This avoidance of the giggle factor is apparent in the sheer reluctance to seriously explore possibilities outside the realm of accepted science for example. This is regardless the actual quality of the commonly accepted science in question (most speak of it as if they know, but they retain a shallow understanding at best).
While I can understand the general guideline of sticking to mainstream thought patterns as a shortcut to staying away from shams and scams that plague alternative thought processes, I find it rather restrictive and rather like closing one's mind off prematurely. It also leads to the reluctance to question taboos, which may have well lost their practical value over the ages, yet still remaining from lack of informed querying. This seems to be rather unfortunate and a hindrance to progress.
This avoidance of the giggle factor is apparent in the sheer reluctance to seriously explore possibilities outside the realm of accepted science for example. This is regardless the actual quality of the commonly accepted science in question (most speak of it as if they know, but they retain a shallow understanding at best).
While I can understand the general guideline of sticking to mainstream thought patterns as a shortcut to staying away from shams and scams that plague alternative thought processes, I find it rather restrictive and rather like closing one's mind off prematurely. It also leads to the reluctance to question taboos, which may have well lost their practical value over the ages, yet still remaining from lack of informed querying. This seems to be rather unfortunate and a hindrance to progress.
Monday, March 05, 2012
Humans And People
While examining human society over the years of my existence, I've come to feel that human society is split between humans and people. By humans, I mean the animal-like homo sapien creatures that act primarily on instinct and maintain but a veneer of conscious critical thought. They mostly go with the flow, run with canned responses to common situations and I am quite convinced that they are little more than mere livestock. NPCs, if you will. Their presence seems to serve little more than to flesh out an otherwise empty living world.
On the other paw, there are the people, who are quite different from the mere humans. A person is one who's awakened and starts to realize that the confines of society are merely illusory, and that some of the parts have ceased to serve their purpose and can be safely ignored. They are willing to examine and constantly improve themselves and the systems around themselves. Being active participants, I'd say they're player character at the very least, and not merely run by some fancy AI.
The sad thing is the apparent lack of people presence in the face of rather excessive human presence in the current system. Perhaps it's due to processing power limitations, that there can only be that many people on earth at any given time, and that any other character spawned into this system would be doomed to be a mere human. Unfortunate, but that's how the crowd crumbles.
On the other paw, there are the people, who are quite different from the mere humans. A person is one who's awakened and starts to realize that the confines of society are merely illusory, and that some of the parts have ceased to serve their purpose and can be safely ignored. They are willing to examine and constantly improve themselves and the systems around themselves. Being active participants, I'd say they're player character at the very least, and not merely run by some fancy AI.
The sad thing is the apparent lack of people presence in the face of rather excessive human presence in the current system. Perhaps it's due to processing power limitations, that there can only be that many people on earth at any given time, and that any other character spawned into this system would be doomed to be a mere human. Unfortunate, but that's how the crowd crumbles.
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Laws Are Good
I was thinking about the goodness of laws earlier today, and I am certainly glad for their presence. That is why I respect the laws. Criminal law is an agreement set up by the representatives of the people (elected or otherwise) in order to protect the people from Bad Things. I, for one, have no desire to face Bad Things, so I am glad that I am protected by enforceable laws.
Think of the origin of the laws regarding murder. Killing is something that's perfectly natural to people. I for one would have killed dozens of people by now if the law didn't make it less than worth my while. Someone offends me? I find a way to kill them. Easy. Unfortunately, not only does this reduce cogs from our economic machinery, it also opens one to unfortunate backlash from those related to the inoperative cog. This cycle of revenge can potentially destabilize the system, which is an understandably unpleasant side effect. I'm sure back then people figured this out and simply agreed not to kill one another under any circumstances, except perhaps when a whole bunch of people agree that a particular person should be snuffed. It's alright if multiple people decide on something, after all.
How would such laws affect those who are regardless inclined to kill? Well I think that'd inspire me to hide the bodies at the very least, so I can continue with my activities. Not a bad thing overall, considering how it spares others the distress of seeing bodies lying all over the place. Out of sight is out of mind. The law works!
Think of the origin of the laws regarding murder. Killing is something that's perfectly natural to people. I for one would have killed dozens of people by now if the law didn't make it less than worth my while. Someone offends me? I find a way to kill them. Easy. Unfortunately, not only does this reduce cogs from our economic machinery, it also opens one to unfortunate backlash from those related to the inoperative cog. This cycle of revenge can potentially destabilize the system, which is an understandably unpleasant side effect. I'm sure back then people figured this out and simply agreed not to kill one another under any circumstances, except perhaps when a whole bunch of people agree that a particular person should be snuffed. It's alright if multiple people decide on something, after all.
How would such laws affect those who are regardless inclined to kill? Well I think that'd inspire me to hide the bodies at the very least, so I can continue with my activities. Not a bad thing overall, considering how it spares others the distress of seeing bodies lying all over the place. Out of sight is out of mind. The law works!
Friday, February 24, 2012
Differences
People are probably more different than they think. They smell, taste and feel things differently. It makes me wonder: Do humans truly receive the exact same inputs across the species? I'm considering what are regarded as normal humans, who don't have some sensory disabilities that preclude detection of certain inputs.
The taste of spiciness made me consider human perceptions. According to common understanding, spiciness is basically the same thing, and some people are more resistant to it than others. However, I also know that people can be resistant to one type of chilli yet be strongly affected by something made from a different chilli. This makes me suspect that people really do sense the same thing very differently.
A part of this may be a matter of the receptors themselves. Simply put, someone may see the same red quite differently from someone else. The other part is probably a matter of a person's memories, whereby associations are made to the input and result in quite some post processing that may color the interpretation of an input any number of ways.
The taste of spiciness made me consider human perceptions. According to common understanding, spiciness is basically the same thing, and some people are more resistant to it than others. However, I also know that people can be resistant to one type of chilli yet be strongly affected by something made from a different chilli. This makes me suspect that people really do sense the same thing very differently.
A part of this may be a matter of the receptors themselves. Simply put, someone may see the same red quite differently from someone else. The other part is probably a matter of a person's memories, whereby associations are made to the input and result in quite some post processing that may color the interpretation of an input any number of ways.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Myopia
I've been thinking about the matter of myopia, and how research is constantly trying to prove whether it's a genetic or environmental matter. While I can understand the merits of trying to prove the origins of myopia, I do wonder if there's a chance that it's really a combination of the two.
For example, it was found that there was a probable genetic predisposition to myopia. Yet, other research has found that there's a positive correlation between myopia prone environments (lots of close work) and people there, regardless of their lineage. It sounds to me that there's a mix of genetics and environment here, where those genetically prone to myopia are more likely to develop serious myopia when exposed to a myopic environment, while everyone else are prone to develop it regardless of genetics due to the environment.
If I were to consider possible physical attributes that predispose one to myopia, I'd go with eyeball shape and memory. Students with good memory may not study nearly as much as the others with poorer memories, and become more unlikely to develop myopia from excessive close work. And those with certain eyeball shapes are already predisposed to the eyes growing lopsidedly to create the visual imperfection, and are thus more likely to develop myopia from close work. Obviously, a combination of the two would indicate the predisposition towards severe myopia.
For example, it was found that there was a probable genetic predisposition to myopia. Yet, other research has found that there's a positive correlation between myopia prone environments (lots of close work) and people there, regardless of their lineage. It sounds to me that there's a mix of genetics and environment here, where those genetically prone to myopia are more likely to develop serious myopia when exposed to a myopic environment, while everyone else are prone to develop it regardless of genetics due to the environment.
If I were to consider possible physical attributes that predispose one to myopia, I'd go with eyeball shape and memory. Students with good memory may not study nearly as much as the others with poorer memories, and become more unlikely to develop myopia from excessive close work. And those with certain eyeball shapes are already predisposed to the eyes growing lopsidedly to create the visual imperfection, and are thus more likely to develop myopia from close work. Obviously, a combination of the two would indicate the predisposition towards severe myopia.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Lovely Mirror
I remember reading an article sometime back about beauty, and how the symmetry of a face is positively correlated with beauty. In short, the more symmetrical a person's face, the more beautiful it is.
I've been thinking about reflections lately, and how different asymmetrical people can look in a mirror as opposed to how they do in person. It made me wonder if there were some implications to this disconnect. For one, people rarely see themselves the way others do them on a regular basis. I doubt the average person takes a photo of themselves or uses a video screen as a mirror. So basically, they're routinely seeing the laterally inverted image of themselves as opposed to their right side images. What might this do to how they dress, do their makeup, their hair...and basically everything else about themselves?
People are basically regularly going about without having really seen themselves. Even photographs can be outright amusing when viewed through a mirror. Take a poster and look at its reflected image: The otherwise handsome/pretty movie star on the right side image can look comical in the inverted. I wonder if anyone truly realizes how silly they really look in real life...
I've been thinking about reflections lately, and how different asymmetrical people can look in a mirror as opposed to how they do in person. It made me wonder if there were some implications to this disconnect. For one, people rarely see themselves the way others do them on a regular basis. I doubt the average person takes a photo of themselves or uses a video screen as a mirror. So basically, they're routinely seeing the laterally inverted image of themselves as opposed to their right side images. What might this do to how they dress, do their makeup, their hair...and basically everything else about themselves?
People are basically regularly going about without having really seen themselves. Even photographs can be outright amusing when viewed through a mirror. Take a poster and look at its reflected image: The otherwise handsome/pretty movie star on the right side image can look comical in the inverted. I wonder if anyone truly realizes how silly they really look in real life...
Friday, February 17, 2012
Safe House
Operative on operative action, betrayal and intrigue. Think of Safe House as the Bourne movie that lacks truly stylish action scenes and fails to truly hold a gripping tale together. Being the sort of creature that's largely incapable of observing human expressions and such, I have difficulty independently confirming the claims that the lead actors' performances were good. All I see is a plot that could've been better done. Oh, and they need a better fight choreographer.
So what's good about the whole thing? They created the premise of a genius manipulator agent who apparently went rogue and then resurfaced with some precious cargo. Unfortunately, apart from depicting him as a rather competent killer in fairly improbable scenarios, his intentions remain hazy at best. While this may have been an attempt at inspiring some intellectual considerations on the matter, it does seem to be rather poorly delivered.
Overall I'd say the movie has failed at its premise, and is probably somewhere close to a 3.5/10. I might've given higher scores were I more capable of understanding human expressions and all that, but unfortunately I'm not so I can't really give it a better rating.
So what's good about the whole thing? They created the premise of a genius manipulator agent who apparently went rogue and then resurfaced with some precious cargo. Unfortunately, apart from depicting him as a rather competent killer in fairly improbable scenarios, his intentions remain hazy at best. While this may have been an attempt at inspiring some intellectual considerations on the matter, it does seem to be rather poorly delivered.
Overall I'd say the movie has failed at its premise, and is probably somewhere close to a 3.5/10. I might've given higher scores were I more capable of understanding human expressions and all that, but unfortunately I'm not so I can't really give it a better rating.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Underworld: Awakening
This movie is a shining example of a sequel dragged out too long and plagued by a budgetary shortage worse than a vampire coven's blood shortage. I'd give it a 9/10 for successfully creating more plot holes than I care to mention.
Some say that sequels experience diminishing returns the farther they go. I'm inclined to believe this is the case for Underworld. The first installment had something of an intriguing story going. From then on, it's been a downward spiral into something that's scarcely better than another episode in a tv drama series.
What's good about Underworld? I guess it's that it's a bag of laughs from the implausible acting, bad green screening and a storyline that's swiss cheese after a firing squad had target practice. It manages to play to every stereotype in a narrative where the protagonists are hunted to extinction, and to play it badly.
There's frankly little to recommend this, and I'm inclined to give it a nice 4/10. Sorry, guys. I tried to like it, but I really couldn't.
Some say that sequels experience diminishing returns the farther they go. I'm inclined to believe this is the case for Underworld. The first installment had something of an intriguing story going. From then on, it's been a downward spiral into something that's scarcely better than another episode in a tv drama series.
What's good about Underworld? I guess it's that it's a bag of laughs from the implausible acting, bad green screening and a storyline that's swiss cheese after a firing squad had target practice. It manages to play to every stereotype in a narrative where the protagonists are hunted to extinction, and to play it badly.
There's frankly little to recommend this, and I'm inclined to give it a nice 4/10. Sorry, guys. I tried to like it, but I really couldn't.
Monday, February 13, 2012
People Manipulation
A masterful manipulator of people would be good at simplifying and reframing statements, which can routinely appeal to the widest possible audience. They understand common peoples' thought patterns and the thoughts that naturally follow. This, I think, is what makes it so hard for other non-manipulators to get their ideas across.
I've been wondering at how it is that clearly smart people find such difficulty getting their ideas across to less intellectually but more socially brilliant folk. I find that, when dealing with humans, the more abstract the idea the harder it seems for the average human to grasp. In short, someone who doesn't understand how to get an idea across will be easily outmatched by a social person of mediocre intellect since the idea will fly clean over other peoples' heads. Sad, but true.
Conversely, even mediocre ideas can be made palatable (and especially digestible) to most people (especially non-experts in the area) given sufficient social skill. This may well be the reason why mediocre or even poor managers can still rise to the top on their social skills while other more intelligent folk wallow at the bottom: If nobody can understand their otherwise brilliant but abstract notions, nobody can really appreciate their brilliance for what it is. Correctness be damned.
I've been wondering at how it is that clearly smart people find such difficulty getting their ideas across to less intellectually but more socially brilliant folk. I find that, when dealing with humans, the more abstract the idea the harder it seems for the average human to grasp. In short, someone who doesn't understand how to get an idea across will be easily outmatched by a social person of mediocre intellect since the idea will fly clean over other peoples' heads. Sad, but true.
Conversely, even mediocre ideas can be made palatable (and especially digestible) to most people (especially non-experts in the area) given sufficient social skill. This may well be the reason why mediocre or even poor managers can still rise to the top on their social skills while other more intelligent folk wallow at the bottom: If nobody can understand their otherwise brilliant but abstract notions, nobody can really appreciate their brilliance for what it is. Correctness be damned.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Chronicle
Teenagers with superpowers. That's what Chronicle is about. That said, the story of Chronicle is what can be expected when teenagers lacking creative ideas decide to use their powers to their maximum potential. Ultimately, it's an interesting premise that degenerates towards the end.
The plot itself is sufficiently predictable that I cannot see how I might elaborate without injecting some major spoilers. Suffice to say that the film does a somewhat decent job of the first person point of view (Blair Witch, perhaps) camera work that is rarely backed up by the narrative. Frankly, the narrative itself lacks depth, and fails to truly build the sort of emotional attachment to the characters that it does seem to try to do.
Overall I would say that the movie is a mediocre attempt at portraying teenage life turning sour when complicated by growing superpowers. It is somewhat refreshing to show it from a shaky first person perspective, but it misses the magic touch that would make it truly memorable. I'd give the movie a 7/10, with maybe 8/10 if you're into the camera work.
The plot itself is sufficiently predictable that I cannot see how I might elaborate without injecting some major spoilers. Suffice to say that the film does a somewhat decent job of the first person point of view (Blair Witch, perhaps) camera work that is rarely backed up by the narrative. Frankly, the narrative itself lacks depth, and fails to truly build the sort of emotional attachment to the characters that it does seem to try to do.
Overall I would say that the movie is a mediocre attempt at portraying teenage life turning sour when complicated by growing superpowers. It is somewhat refreshing to show it from a shaky first person perspective, but it misses the magic touch that would make it truly memorable. I'd give the movie a 7/10, with maybe 8/10 if you're into the camera work.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Thoughts Are Only Skin Deep
I saw a most interesting product just now. Basically, it was a snail slime based moisturizer, that is touted to be 70% pure snail slime. For those who don't already know, most girls I know wouldn't want to be a snail, let alone slather its slime on her own face. How surprising. Can it really be that there's a good way to sell disgusting stuff to females at exorbitant prices?
Beauty itself appears to be priceless. The very thought of the possibility of becoming more beautiful seems to suffice in selling a product, efficacy and grossness be damned. And for a high price, to boot. Clearly, it is entirely possible to get a female to pay dearly for the privilege to slather disgusting stuff on her own face. Intriguing.
The thought process is interesting. In the absence of a reframing method, most people have established ideas of what is gross and what isn't. Yet, the concept of a beauty product sweeps all of that aside, reframing everything in the context of a beauty product, whereby its "objective" attributes are enhanced. Truly, thoughts are only skin deep, and just need a little nudge in the right direction to completely transform them.
Beauty itself appears to be priceless. The very thought of the possibility of becoming more beautiful seems to suffice in selling a product, efficacy and grossness be damned. And for a high price, to boot. Clearly, it is entirely possible to get a female to pay dearly for the privilege to slather disgusting stuff on her own face. Intriguing.
The thought process is interesting. In the absence of a reframing method, most people have established ideas of what is gross and what isn't. Yet, the concept of a beauty product sweeps all of that aside, reframing everything in the context of a beauty product, whereby its "objective" attributes are enhanced. Truly, thoughts are only skin deep, and just need a little nudge in the right direction to completely transform them.
Sunday, February 05, 2012
The Kravist Mindset
When I was discussing techniques with a friend today, he basically managed to "shank" me while in conversation. Now, I was thinking that I was holding back because we were in conversation and he was a friend. In fact, it would probably be inappropriate to do a full drill to avert the strike as well. Yet, it opened the possibility to me, that someone could indeed attempt that in real life for no apparent reason. Simply put, the strike would succeed regardless.
Now, the next question is, what would an appropriate kravist response be to such a situation? Clearly the first strike has landed and a serious injury has probably occurred. Yet, if one's still capable of soldiering on after the initial injury, one's survivability remains higher than if one simply gave up at that point. Failing the opportunity to stop the first move, one then needs to react quickly to prevent the next ones from happening. Hence the react, adapt and move on. The next move, should the assailant(s) be taken down, would be to seek medical attention and emergency first aid on oneself if at all possible.
I guess that would be the kind of injury that even a master would sustain, simply because there was no warning at all. However fast one's reactions may be or how sharp one's instincts are, sometimes it's possible to be taken by surprise regardless. Granted, this is exceedingly rare and just about any normal street situation wouldn't play out this way (completely without warning, that is), it remains a possibility especially if one has become a high value target for reasons unknown to oneself.
Now, the next question is, what would an appropriate kravist response be to such a situation? Clearly the first strike has landed and a serious injury has probably occurred. Yet, if one's still capable of soldiering on after the initial injury, one's survivability remains higher than if one simply gave up at that point. Failing the opportunity to stop the first move, one then needs to react quickly to prevent the next ones from happening. Hence the react, adapt and move on. The next move, should the assailant(s) be taken down, would be to seek medical attention and emergency first aid on oneself if at all possible.
I guess that would be the kind of injury that even a master would sustain, simply because there was no warning at all. However fast one's reactions may be or how sharp one's instincts are, sometimes it's possible to be taken by surprise regardless. Granted, this is exceedingly rare and just about any normal street situation wouldn't play out this way (completely without warning, that is), it remains a possibility especially if one has become a high value target for reasons unknown to oneself.
Friday, February 03, 2012
Leading From The Front
I was thinking about leadership, and what makes a great leader. While there may be a great number of solid thinkers making it into leadership positions, people of otherwise rather similar intellect have an incredible knack for being right horrible leaders. It isn't always a matter of poor intellect, and is often more of a propensity not to observe the front. Failing to do so tends to have a rather nasty knock on effect on decision making integrity.
When I think of a great leader, I'm thinking of someone like Alexander or Rommel. The sorts of leaders who put their own necks on the line and are acutely aware of action on the battlefront, which enables them to make accurate and appropriate decisions on the fly. It is one thing to lead from a podium far from the action, based on assumptions and analyses that may be backdated at best, outright inaccurate at worst. It's another to really know what's going on.
Unfortunately, it seems to be that, in the career space, time spent working alongside the grunts is time not spent rubbing shoulders with the brass. This tends to have some knock on effects on their progression, even though it does wonders for grunt morale. There seems to be little incentive to actually do a good job in leadership sometimes, sad as it is.
When I think of a great leader, I'm thinking of someone like Alexander or Rommel. The sorts of leaders who put their own necks on the line and are acutely aware of action on the battlefront, which enables them to make accurate and appropriate decisions on the fly. It is one thing to lead from a podium far from the action, based on assumptions and analyses that may be backdated at best, outright inaccurate at worst. It's another to really know what's going on.
Unfortunately, it seems to be that, in the career space, time spent working alongside the grunts is time not spent rubbing shoulders with the brass. This tends to have some knock on effects on their progression, even though it does wonders for grunt morale. There seems to be little incentive to actually do a good job in leadership sometimes, sad as it is.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Tracking Dreams
I recall dreams from time to time. It's not really all that often, probably once or twice a month according to my dream diary. The diary logs any dream that is significant, so of course there are a number of dreams I've had that are recalled but quickly forgotten for whatever reason. This night, I write about tracking dreams.
Dreams often have nonsensical premises, and one wonders where the dreams came from. For me, I interrogate my mind using the dream itself to gain some insight. If I dreamed about something that I was crossing the bridge at night with only a flashlight on, I'd run a search with concepts like flashlight and darkness. The first memories that surface are often the most salient ones that are most closely related to the dream itself. In this case, it was when I was guiding my folks down a dark passageway because they didn't see as well in the dark as I did.
The next step is to interrogate that memory for the emotions associated with it. It turns out that works as well, which makes a rather nice match to what the dream was about. After filtering for these memory associated aspects of the dream, it becomes possible to root out the other dream aspects that did not come from the memory. That is the essence of the dream.
Dreams often have nonsensical premises, and one wonders where the dreams came from. For me, I interrogate my mind using the dream itself to gain some insight. If I dreamed about something that I was crossing the bridge at night with only a flashlight on, I'd run a search with concepts like flashlight and darkness. The first memories that surface are often the most salient ones that are most closely related to the dream itself. In this case, it was when I was guiding my folks down a dark passageway because they didn't see as well in the dark as I did.
The next step is to interrogate that memory for the emotions associated with it. It turns out that works as well, which makes a rather nice match to what the dream was about. After filtering for these memory associated aspects of the dream, it becomes possible to root out the other dream aspects that did not come from the memory. That is the essence of the dream.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Chinese New Year Superstitions
Like with many superstitions, Chinese new year superstitions often make little sense. As usual, they are probably best thought of in terms of tradition rather than logic and actual practicality. Too much of it is based on the concepts of sympathetic magick, apparently without understanding of the principles of such spellcraft.
Now, let's consider the matter of luck and how it's purported to operate during the new year period. Supposedly, the practice of getting new things and cleaning out old (bad) things is intended to rid the house of ill luck. Makes sense. However, one's also told not to clean up for a period after to accept the good luck. Wait, if cleaning's good, why's cleaning suddenly bad? Gota make up our minds somewhere here...
In my opinion, if the year's been good, wouldn't it be generally harmful to attempt a thorough cleaning around the period since it may involve clearing the good luck along with the bad? Simply put, I really don't think the luck related superstitions hold much water at all. For one, I don't note religious adherents to such practices as being particularly rich or lucky. And for those who are about to say it...yup, both will involve empirical observations.
Now, let's consider the matter of luck and how it's purported to operate during the new year period. Supposedly, the practice of getting new things and cleaning out old (bad) things is intended to rid the house of ill luck. Makes sense. However, one's also told not to clean up for a period after to accept the good luck. Wait, if cleaning's good, why's cleaning suddenly bad? Gota make up our minds somewhere here...
In my opinion, if the year's been good, wouldn't it be generally harmful to attempt a thorough cleaning around the period since it may involve clearing the good luck along with the bad? Simply put, I really don't think the luck related superstitions hold much water at all. For one, I don't note religious adherents to such practices as being particularly rich or lucky. And for those who are about to say it...yup, both will involve empirical observations.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Processing Power
Human minds have limited processing power. One of the effects of living in a city is that processing power becomes overloaded fairly easily, and people go into shutdown mode in order to deal with it. That is, to avoid going positively nuts. Everyone does it to a greater or lesser extent.
Now, my consideration is with why it is that some people think for themselves and others don't. I'm going to assume that processing power norms exist, and most people are similarly smart. I'm also assuming that people are able to think, and most aren't necessarily running their brains in suspend mode all the time. With these assumptions in place, the logical question is what exactly the processing power is spent on.
Some of the supposedly "mindless" folk most probably do run their processors. They just seem to have their processors set on dealing with seemingly unproductive activities, such as fashion perhaps. However, it does seem to me that the constraints they set upon themselves (or have internalized from wider society) is the set of prescribed topics to think about. The reason "mindless" folk are as they are is that they are simply processing within the prescribed paradigm, and it never really does occur to them to consider anything beyond those confines. Not so mindless after all. Just...misguided.
Now, my consideration is with why it is that some people think for themselves and others don't. I'm going to assume that processing power norms exist, and most people are similarly smart. I'm also assuming that people are able to think, and most aren't necessarily running their brains in suspend mode all the time. With these assumptions in place, the logical question is what exactly the processing power is spent on.
Some of the supposedly "mindless" folk most probably do run their processors. They just seem to have their processors set on dealing with seemingly unproductive activities, such as fashion perhaps. However, it does seem to me that the constraints they set upon themselves (or have internalized from wider society) is the set of prescribed topics to think about. The reason "mindless" folk are as they are is that they are simply processing within the prescribed paradigm, and it never really does occur to them to consider anything beyond those confines. Not so mindless after all. Just...misguided.
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Game Of Thrones
Power has ever been something that the people have fought over. In this current age, the internet is quite a potent powerhouse indeed, and once again control over this resource has become quite salient.
Unlike any other time in human history, a resource has been created that can potentially link the people of the world who are capable of accessing it. In fact, the sheer ubiquity of the internet has made it such that even common folk can have access in a goodly number of countries. Never before has a resource been created that can fell governments and change societies. Coordination becomes possible, and for once people can band together in sufficient numbers to a common purpose that may be contrary to the unified will of the authorities.
On the other side, the governments and corporations that help run them are feeling the pinch and are attempting to wrest back control of the internet from the people. Given the concentration of old fashioned political power and money in these folk, it would be interesting to see if people power has a chance to fight back this time. The key weakness of the mob has always been that it's too divided to fight back except in exceedingly dire situations, but this time it may well be different.
Unlike any other time in human history, a resource has been created that can potentially link the people of the world who are capable of accessing it. In fact, the sheer ubiquity of the internet has made it such that even common folk can have access in a goodly number of countries. Never before has a resource been created that can fell governments and change societies. Coordination becomes possible, and for once people can band together in sufficient numbers to a common purpose that may be contrary to the unified will of the authorities.
On the other side, the governments and corporations that help run them are feeling the pinch and are attempting to wrest back control of the internet from the people. Given the concentration of old fashioned political power and money in these folk, it would be interesting to see if people power has a chance to fight back this time. The key weakness of the mob has always been that it's too divided to fight back except in exceedingly dire situations, but this time it may well be different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)