Aila

sports and friends...

2011-04-17T20:55:00.001-07:00

Also... I'm realizing something here....

An interest in sports does not imply that your stupid....
it does suggest how social you are, and you 'define' yourself.

A guy who's into NewYork Mets, grew up in New York.
Loving the mets is a social thing. It shows how to connected to
the guys around you, and how much of 'just one of the guys' you were.
If you were not 'one of the guys' but a nerd sitting the library,
or playing a computer game by yourself, you would not 'like' the
new york mets or any other sports team.

If you like a sports team, and dislike the opposing team, shows
you level of socialization.

Nerds/Geeks are an abused/bullied folk, and HATE the regular
people that bullied them. These 'regular folk' are sports fans,
you are not 'of their group', and therefore you do not define yourself
as a sports fan.

If this is true, then I should be able to predict how many friends
you have on facebook based on how interested a guy is in sports.
erm....

Just questions...

2011-04-17T19:15:00.000-07:00

Psychopaths and Sociopaths don't have insecurities... why?
Fear of social rejection seems to be an evolutionarily valid... doesn't seem to be related to a persons ability to feel empathy. And insecurities doesn't seem to relate directly to any emotion.

Personalization....

2011-04-14T09:53:00.000-07:00

You come to a place you've never been before. Someone lived here before. Not you.
You know this place is not yours because none of your stuff is in this place. So you put your stuff in this place, and it becomes your place. Your stuff...

You take stuff from somewhere, and put it somewhere else. Get a delivery truck to transport stuff from where it used to be, to where you want it to be. You get to decide where to put this stuff so that makes it your stuff. And now this new place is yours because you put your stuff in your place.

REALLY? Is that all there is to personalization....?

Fairness

2011-01-31T09:42:00.001-08:00

Fairness is something that can only be established in certain (limited) conditions.

ie: You have two friends, they are hungry. You have two apples.
You give each friend one apple.

You have two hungry friends, and you are also hungry. You have two apples. This alteration makes fairness more difficult, and less precise. However, a fair solution still is easy to see; divide up the two apples in small enough pieces and each person gets an equal share.

You have two hungry friends, one hasn't eaten all day, one is slightly hunger. One Apple. Given the level of hunger is different, would it still be fair to give them equal shares of the apple? Is it fair to give the friend who hasn't eaten all day the entire apple?
Maybe get both friends to quantify their hunger, and use that as weights to measure what proportion of the apple each friend would get. (a messy solution for a messy situation).

Snap back to reality.... How about a more realistic example...

You have $500 in the bank. You have two children both starting college.
Both kids want to get into the same program; and each will need to pay a tuition of $250.
Here's a situation in which fairness can occur; Divide the $500 equally amongst the two kids.

You have $500, and two kids with different interests. One wants to get into a college program which costs $300, and the other kids program costs $200. Is it still fair to divide the $500 equally? Is it fair to divide the $500 unequally, to pay for their different interests?

You have $500, two kids. One wants to get into a college program that guarantees a job at the end, this program costs $500. The other child wants to get into a program that costs $100, which guarantees no job prospects.

....

In each example, I've taken a situation that calls for fairness, and added one more factor to consider. In life, most every situation has multiple dimensions, numerous factors..... They say that life isn't fair. I ask, how can it be.

Dare I say... it is unfair of people to want life to be fair.

Feminism is against the hijab

2009-07-09T06:29:00.000-07:00

I'm not muslim, but I used to believe what they said about women wearing the hijab.
*Its their choice!* Their expression of themselves, and their devotion to their religion, etc.
But to understand the argument better, I started listening to mullahs talk about why its
important for muslim women to wear a hijab. In a word, its modesty.

Listening to Shaykh-ul-Islam Al-Hidayah answer a girls question about why women should cover up, the Shaykh said that its for their own benefit. A muslim women should cover up so she is not hassled by men; its about protecting the women from unwanted attention. He goes on to say that women get *in touble* (ie raped) when they are not modest enough.

Putting the whole *blaming the victim* aside for another rant....

But lets look at this argument more closely. "A women should cover up so she is not hassled."
One basic principle of humans, is that we ostracize that which is different. Being social creatures, we're designed to look for the black sheep.

So let say a good god-fearing head-covering muslim woman, living in a country where the majority of the women do not cover their heads, goes out for some shopping. In this society, her headscarf makes her stand out and hence noticed as different. She is actually being the opposite of modest, she is attracting attention BECAUSE she is wearing something very differnt.

Having attracted all that attention from everyone (she notices people looking at her, and maybe even staring), she more likely to attract the attention of a person with bad intentions, making her the prime target for a person looking for trouble.

How is that protecting the women?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7IrvkhUb3Y

Not Monsters

2009-06-24T09:08:00.000-07:00

Not Monsters: Analyzing the Stories of Child Molesters by Pamela D. Schultz

My review

rating: 5 of 5 stars

Sex offenders are notorious for re offending. Reading their stories, every one of them thinks that rehabilitation is possible, given enough time, understanding, and counseling. Some are able to lead productive lives, and have years in between offenses, however, in the long run, they end up back to reoffending.

Sex offereders (I think are closer to violent criminals) because they have developed sexual interests, and coping mechinanisms, that incorperate offending.

Secondly, I propose that these people are not in control of their actions. They are in control of their immate actions, 'chose not to' etc, however, after time (much like an anger management graduate) the tension builds, the thoughts intensify, and eventually, people give in to urges.

I think child molesters are not in control of their selves. Their emotional development seems to be childlike in many ways.

Therefore, I think rehabiliation to the point that they can intergrate into general society, is impossible. (ie akin to a recovering alcoholic *living* in a bar). The best solution, I think, would be to create a separate society for child molesters. Much like a productive jail, where inmates can start business, compete with products (not services), maybe in an e-commerce environment. A place where they can live without contact with children, and without seeing another child.

The Religious and Psychology

2009-04-21T11:23:00.000-07:00

I've done some research various people's views on psychology and psychologists, and ironically, the people that I agree with are deeply religious. This is very bizarre because I am deeply atheist!

Nonetheless, it seems the deeply religious and I have taken a very different path to the same conclusion. Religious Folk believe that (and I'll quote someone here)

I suppose I'm talking about those who choose to be religious, not those that are raised within a sect, and remain within the same religious philosophy they were raised with, simply because they were raised in it. No, I'm not talking about those folk. I'm talking about the folk that can think; not accept any old smuck that wears a robe, a funny looking hat, and has a bible in hand, to be an authority figure. I'm talking about those that believe that god is the only and ultimate authority figure, and that they need to have a 'personal relationship with god'. Or to translate that to atheist language: *Know Thy Self*.

(when the conversation is between you and the imaginary friend that's always *got your back*, well that's just you assessing your own situation with feelings of security and self assurance. Yes, those secure feelings come form your imaginary friend, if those feelings are there, doesn't really matter where its coming from)

*Quoting some religious guy here*
no matter how good and advance methodology and human knowledge, when it has something to do with a person mental and inner self mechanisms, others are always outsiders who may or may not able to understand it. Only God can understand a person completely, therefore the solution must first of all comes from Him.

Maybe I'll take a turn and say that any intelligent/thinking person will ultimately come to the same conclusion about psychology. It is the art of applying human principles to your own life, as a means of evaluation. Not a means of measuring normality, but simply having the knowledge of the theories that are out there, some of which may apply to you. Psychology is not a science! Its not an "behavior x is caused be deisres y'. Its much more abstract than that, more like 'behaviours are caused by desires'. Which behaviours? Which desires? For each person the answer is different.

Video Games and TV

2009-04-11T11:51:00.000-07:00

There's a strong correlation between hours spent watching tv, and being influenced by advertising. I wonder if there is a correlation between how much time a person spends on video games, and how much susceptible they are to media conditioning

The virus of Ego (Federal bank)

2009-03-29T09:31:00.000-07:00

Ego acts as a virus, in that it destroys its host.

Criminals commit a crime. Smart criminals get away with their crime, become overwhelmed with pride for escaping, start thinking they're *way too smart to get caught*, which causes them to make a mistake, and get caught.

The Federal Bank is the only entity that can print money.

The US spent too much money due to war.(committed a crime) To rectify the issue, they removed the gold standard from the monetary system. (get away with crime). Create a system where money is printed on need basis. Start two wars (way too smart to get caught).

I feel like the monetary system has crumbled upon its own genius, much like it is the criminal's own ego that will eventually expose him.

Dr.Quantum

2009-03-29T09:23:00.000-07:00

If the internet is a representation of human mind, in that it is where minds converge. Then would the internet be considered a consciousness being by itself? The multiple facets of the internet representing all thoughts produced by mankind? (minus the countries that dont have access to the communication superhighway).

If a cooperation is a legal entity, then the internet can also become a conscious being. It can develop and grow; Internet started as information/communication highway and now is dominated by ecommerce. It can think (youtube/bloggers).

Four Basic Principles

2009-03-29T09:21:00.000-07:00

Learn from Everyone
Follow noone
Watch for patterns
work like hell

2008-05-21T04:37:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-12T11:57:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-12T07:21:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-11T13:55:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-11T13:48:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-11T12:56:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-10T11:22:00.000-07:00

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)

2008-05-08T16:24:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-08T04:51:00.001-07:00

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

2008-05-05T18:40:00.000-07:00

A youtube find!

Spelling Out English Words

2008-05-05T10:18:00.000-07:00

(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

2008-05-05T07:46:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-03T13:41:00.000-07:00

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.