I've been learning about food additives, the business of high fructose corn syrup. Its amazing to me that all this 'bullshit' is in our foods… and the FDA approves?

I can remember when Genetic Engineering was an issue (ethical or health issue) brought to our attention by the church. There was so much uproar about genetic alteration of food back then 'They're changing our apples and oranges!' Why wasn't anyone outraged about the amount of food additives?

They put chemical in baby food, that’s known to 'stunt growth'! I can't think of anything more outraging.

All the chemicals in proceeded food, why is there so little outrage about this?

Short Answer: People are outraged when the media tells them to be outraged. We turn to the news channel to educate us about the world, forgetting that they are paid to entertain us, tantalize us with ill-researched facts, and prey on our
gullibility and our attention spans; collecting as many advertising dollars as their bank accounts will hold.

Google Searches: Religions

To get a representation of how many people are talking about a certain religion, or the followers of that religion, I did some Google searches: Surprisingly, even though there's all this talk about the violent religion of Islam, Christianity seems to be the most popular subject.

Freud Explains God

If Freud is accurate, that the hidden desires of human beings makes every human a hopeless case, in that, a group of humans are a mass of evil. If anything allows them to tap into their hidden desires, then evil emerges. Well, assuming this is absolutely true, it shows why 90% of the population "needs" god. Every society is diverse; people talk differently, dress differently, value different ideas, and yet we all turn to the dude upstairs. We say we turn to god to 'explain' the unknown, however I think this is just an intellectual justification of why we believe in god. "God created the world because he did' is not an explanation. Evolution offers a much more of an in-depth explanation of how the world was created, and is a theory based on logic. Yet this 90% of humans still turn to god for the answers. Why?

I think its because they know that they 'need' god because it provides them a reason why *they* should not sin (kill/steal/lie...etc). People that turn to god do so because they know that if they engage in evil (or do bad deeds) then they will go to Hell. That burny firey miserable place that no ones wants to end up for eternity. Internal logic must go something like this: *I want to stay out of Hell. This is the reason why I should not act on my desires to kill/steal. Since God is the top of my list of ideas I live by, God MUST have created the world, and so evolution HAS to be wrong. Even though evolution makes Logical sense, and I can't dismiss it because it explains to much, however the main idea that I NEED in my life is the idea of Heaven & Hell and therefore, God takes first priority in any ideas I will entertain. Therefore evolution has to be wrong, somehow. "

And for humans that don’t understand the theory of evolution, they don’t go through this internal battle at all. For them, God IS a logical explanation and it works for their limited understanding of logic.

Of course there is a way out of this belief in God. Listening to your conscience about the difference in good or evil is less limiting than following a holy book, or that *MAN* standing on podium telling you that he's more knowledgeable about the idea of god. Alas, people will do whatever works best for them, and God will always work for the masses.

...unless we can replace God with capitalism. However, Capitalism praises money, not the means of obtaining money. Therefore, society is better off with Go, because 'obtain money by any means necessary is not a society I want to live in'. However I'm getting the feeling that I already do.

Interviews: Oprah VS Charlie Rose

One thing really strong about Oprah is that she actually 'reads' the books of authors that she interviews. Whereas, a lot of interviewers will simple 'wing it', and when they do, they get the author doing their best to tell the audience about 'what the book is about' rather than 'what they think about the topics discussed in the book'. The former is an introduction, one that you will see over and over again if you watch more than one interview with the same author. The latter is what the audience (a knowledgeable audience) is waiting for. The sweet nectar of thought. We want the ideas in the book discussed in depth, not just a mere introduction to them. Introductions are usually the most boring part of any book. The juicy part, the ideas and theories come out in the middle which is then followed by the, hopefully, conclusive ending.

I find interviews by Charlie Rose incredibly boring. He puts a fascinating book on the table, and has an opportunity to speak to the mind behind the ideas, just blows it.

Charlie must have a lot of issues with self esteem for someone who has put himself in a position where he is able to interact with the greatest of minds. He tries so hard to impress his guests with his intellect, that all left is an annoying and painful conversation with someone that's yelling 'no, really, I AM smart!'

He cares so much about coming up with an intelligent questions, ones that sound knowledgeable, inquisitive and challenges the author at the same time, that all that comes out is ...pointless questions from someone who is trying too hard. I think Charie Rose is very intelligent, and if he just let himself go, and just TALK to these people like he would to an ordinary human being, the discussion would become a lot more interesting.

however, it seems like he, himself doesn't see himself as intelligent (even though he is) to be on equal footing with the people that he interviews. I'll reference the Interview with Freakonomics authors: Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt. He treated Levitt like a god, and Dubner as some idiot that wrote an essay because he was instructed by this god-like brain that was Levitt.
You could see Levitt becoming increasingly uncomfortable, and then angry at the way Charlie was conducting the interview; treating his friend and literary partner like that. He wasn't the only one. My heart went out to Dubner. (but according to Daniel Gilber, I probably found this experience more painful than Dubner, himself)

Craig Ferguson = Jon Stewart + Jay Leno

Craig Ferguson has the intellectual capacity of Jon Stewart, with the silly mindless jokes of Jay Leno, who can also turn the show around to deal with real issues of life: emotional issues.

Intelligent Comedy, that's ready to laugh at itself. However I'd say that Craig, living in Europe, has a lot more freedom to be funny than Jon does, in that America has become a very sensitive and censoring environment. American reporters not allowed to question those in government is like a cook not allowed to use the stove.

An Excellent interview(youtube):

Gavin de Becker & Craig Ferguson on Sept 11- Part 1

Google Searches: Orpah Vs Dr Phil

Oprah VS Dr Phil

It seems to me that Dr Phil should have more enemies as he routinely tells people what
they should do with their life's, therefore, I can see many a ex-lovers having a personal in depth with this guy. Oprah on the other hand rarely actively offends people (in my opinion). I decided to do a Google search to take a poll of public opinion.

The data: (5th Nov 2008)
Searched for the word: "Oprah" : 29,700,000
Searched for the word: "Dr Phil" : 3,320,000

The data: (11th April 2009)
Searched for the word: "Oprah" : 20,600,000
Searched for the word: "Dr Phil" : 3,860,000

The Greatest Minds I have never known

Reading List:

Stumbling On Happiness - Daniel Gilbert
Freakonomics - Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt
Why We Love - Helen Fisher's Blog
The Gift of Fear -Gavin De Becker

These books all have one thing in common. They challenge what we call 'common sense' and prove that 'sense' is not 'common' or well known, or even known. They give insight into the hidden desires that motivate people, and explanations regarding the irrational methods humans use to make decisions. I have a feeling that on of Edward Bernays' books may soon be my next addition to the list.

I would group Daniel Gilbert's and Steven Levitt;s minds together for their sense of humor, and I would group Gavin De Becker's mind with Helen Fisher's mind in that its more academic and a study of human nature. I think Gilbert and Levitt both study human nature but consider themselves to be apart of it as well. Whereas De Becker and Fisher look at humans as subjects. I agree with both the mentalities.

Stumbling on Happiness (Memories)

Memories
If they are as deductive as D.G suggests, editing the past with our understanding of the present, ...etc. Then why is it that sometimes *those rare occasions* when you hear a story of an event in your past (For example told by a parent about an event that occurred when you were 3years old. A life changing event that you have no recollection of) it *feels* right, in that is somehow explains *something* about the present that you can't put into words.

Oops, I realize this isn't a counterexample of memory that's 'unedited' but this is simply an example of memory not doing its job. In that, this sequence of events that you have no recollection of, your memory of this event is completely inaccessible.

Marketing

They say Gorilla Marketing arose out of increased competition in advertising. I think this is a part of the reason. I think its more because: Clients are lack patience. Gorilla Marketing produces fast results, in that more people will be aware of your product the moment you pull a stunt. Real marketing that is an art; a dying art. It won't produce results instantly, but if done correctly, will produce lasting results. Labels: Eddie Bernays, Garella marketing, Marketing

iPhone coming to Canada

A youtube find!

Spelling Out English Words

(assuming that people who 'don't have accents' are those that are speaking their mother tongue, whereas people that 'do have accent' are those that learnt English later in life, as their second language)

Why are the people with accents are the ones with the larger vocabulary? This is easy to see when spelling out a word. For example: When an English speaker spells out the word 'Car', they say "C as in Cat, A as in Apple, and R as in Rabbit'. Whereas people with accents say "C as in Catastrophe, A as in Administration, and R as in Republic"

One guess is that when people learnt English as their first language, in Grade1, the teachers would use easy words to associate with letters, words that a child can say easily, like 'cat' and 'apple'. Whereas, when someone learns English when they are in Gr6 (or a higher grade) when they already have a better vocabulary, they are taught bigger words to associate with the letters.

Quotes

Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. --Noam Chomsky

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield." Some Webcite of Quotes

'You are what you love, not what loves you.' Adaptation

"My friends tell me that I have a tendency to point out problems without offering solutions, but they never tell me what I'm supposed to do about it." Daniel Gilbert

First Entry

This is my first entry. I thought it would be interesting to create a blog that no ones reads

So here goes. Another collection of things that I like and think about.