The November elections are over and the Republicans and Tea Party activists have by and large won.
So let's give them what they want. Let's turn the clock back to, say, the 1920s, when money flowed like wine.
Ah, the good old days, with flappers and parties all the time. You remember those times, right? Those great times before medicare, medicaid, social security, or interstates? Let's not forget the 60 hour work weeks with no vacation time or pensions, no child labor laws to speak of and absolutely no health protections of any kind and you were as likely to find rat carcasses in your sausage as pork. Health care was for the rich and education beyond grade school was for the well off. We paid a pittance for the military and nobody thought twice about beating up a black for daring to want to eat with whites, much less having the audacity to want to vote. Women were second class citizens, but at least they had it better than blacks.We had a comparatively small national debt, but corporations actually paid taxes. The maximum tax rate was lower than it is now. It was only 25% for much of the 20s.
Course, everything went completely to hell at the end of the decade, but wasn't it fun before that?
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
How to Give a Good Lecture
I attend a lot of lectures. Unfortunately, I attend very few that are good. Chiefly, I think, that is because most lecturers don't pay attention to the vital point of a lecture. Most people view lectures as a learned expert (i.e. themselves) bestowing information upon their audience. The problem here is that it becomes all about the lecturer. If you are a demagogue, that's what you want. But if you want to teach, it is a terrible attitude.
To begin with, if you are lecturing, you are already failing at optimal teaching strategies. Numerous studies have indicated that lecturing is probably the worst way to impart information. The ability of people to tune into a lecture is limited. Generally, they will only remember the beginning and the end of the lecture. Everything in between is a waste of time. So if you are talking for 50 minutes, 30 minutes of that lecture was not heard. As a result, if you are forced to lecture, you have to break up the lecture into small chunks of really no more than 15 minutes. Ask questions, have them stand up and dance, whatever, but break it up!
But if you are required to give a lecture, you still need to remember what the whole point of the lecture is and it is not to show people you can talk for an hour about the subject. Any fool can do that. A good lecture is centered on the needs of the audience and requires three things: understandability, relevance, and digestibility. Without all three, the lecture, and by extension the lecturer, is a failure.
First, the lecture must be understandable. If the audience can't understand what you are saying, you are wasting their time. This may require learning to speak clearly for some. For others, it may require learning to speak loudly enough to be heard. For most, it requires talking at the level of the audience. The more the audience has to think to interpret what you say, the less they can think about what you are trying to convey. This means using words they can understand or defining terms they might not know, providing enough background material to make your points clear, making sure your visuals mean something and are legible. I have attended far too many talks with slides showing dense, unreadable tables or pictures that related in some way to what the person was talking about, but were not labeled well enough to understand how. The slides need to be clear enough that people can understand them quickly, or you spend the time to walk them through it. The lecture also needs to have a story, it needs to follow a plan. Lecturers often know what they want to say and throw together some slides that might relate, then make it up as they go along, so the lecture is rambling and repetitive. Take the time to organize it.
Second, the lecture must be relevant. I could give the world's best lecture on fairies and unicorns, but if I am supposed to be teaching anatomy to med students, the lecture is a failure. Make sure everything you say has a point to the topic at hand. If it does not, throw it out. You can tell stories to make things interesting, but make sure the stories are illustrative of the points in the talk. Don't go off about what you think of someone's political views or the last football game. Nobody paid to hear that crap. Save that sort of talk for the bar after class. If the talk does not address the needs of the audience, even if those needs are as simple as being entertained for a while, the talk fails.
Third, the talk must be digestible. By this I mean how well is the information retained. The talk may be relevant and understandable, but if it makes so little impact that no one remembers it ten minutes later, there was no point. This is not remembering the lecture though. It is about remembering the ideas of the lecture. A good lecture is like a good story. The style of writing is transparent to the material. Many people get this confused. A lot of people will say William Faulkner and James Joyce are great writers. That they may be, but they are terrible story tellers. Most people who read their material emote over how well the stories were written. Ask them what the story was about though, and they will say, "I have no idea, but wasn't it written beautifully?"
Speakers often do the same thing as highly stylized writers, they turn the talk into an advertisement for themselves. This is demagoguery, not lecturing. Hitler was a classic example of this. Listening to his speeches caused a huge groundswell of emotion. But if one read the talk without the style and personality of the man, the speeches made no sense. Hitler knew this. That was his intent. He said so in his memoirs. Demagogues use this to manipulate people and this makes them dangerous. Most politicians are demagogues. Their talks are not designed to convey information, they are designed to manipulate people emotionally. A good lecturer does not try to bury the content behind a good talk, the talk should enforce the content over the lecturer.
In sum, make sure that the lecture is aimed at the point of the lecture. Lectures should be about bringing information to your audience, not manipulating them. Any manipulation should be centered around conveying the information in as clear and concise a manner as possible in the most memorable fashion. Above all, the lecture should be honest. Your intent and the information contained within it should be clearly stated.
So stop preaching, talking at the audience, rambling off on pointless and irrelevant topics and lecture like you mean it.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Why the Tea Party is Not a Viable Party
The Tea Party (or TPers from here on) is not a viable party and most of them don't even realize why. This is a real puzzle to me as it should be obvious to everyone.
To be a viable party that will get things done, they have to have a vision for what they want. Herein lies the problem. TPers don't stand FOR anything. The TP consists of a bunch of angry people. I can understand being angry. There is a lot to be angry about. But TPers are simply against what they see as things going wrong. They are against taxes, immigration, abortion, gay rights. They are not for anything. They have no vision, they only dislike what they see. You can't lead if you don't have anywhere to go.
A lot of the impetus for the TP was anger over the bank bailouts. Of course, it turned out that the bailouts wound up not costing very much at all. of the $700 Billion that was put aside for it, the government only wound up losing less than $30 Billion according to the latest announcents from the Congressional Budget Office. The reason for this is that when the banks found they had to be owned by the Federal Government and follow much stricter rules, they suddenly found they weren't so broke as they thought after all. Amazing how that worked. I admit I didn't like the bailouts either, but it seems I was wrong about their effect. What I don't like is that we wasted an opportunity to put in place meaningful regulatory controls, that the banks have for the most part gone back to their old practices. But this is not something the TPers are making noises about, which they should be.
TPers talk a lot about tax rates being too high. Of course, our tax rates are much lower now than they were in the past. So I would like to know how low is acceptable. Sadly, I have been told by some that paying any taxes is too much. This amount of greed and lack of any social conscience just sickens me. How is the government supposed to pay for the military that is so important, for the social security and medicare checks, for education, roads, and on and on and on. People don't seem to realize just how much they take from the Federal government, and yet they don't want to contribute.
TruthandPolitics has a nice chart showing the top tax brackets since 1913. Right now it is 35% for anything over $311,950. this is lower than almost any other time. Between 1988-92,the top tax bracket was slightly lower, but you have to go back to 1931 to find a lower rate otherwise. But from 1917-1925 it was higher than it is now. So for almost 100 years, there have only been 16 years with a lower maximal tax rate than now. And how much higher has it been? During WWII the maximal tax rate hit 94% because we were in a war and we needed it. Even though we have been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, no one seems to want to pay for it. We keep getting tax cuts instead. In 1932, the tax rate jumped from 25% to 63% and went up from there. It didn't drop below 70% again until 1981. In all honesty,we don't pay nearly what we used to pay in taxes. It is no wonder that our government is running a deficit. I won't even get into the fact that corporate taxes have virtually vanished, while the slack has been picked up by the middle class. That is a whole other kettle of worms.
As far as immigration goes, theTPers are trying to cut their own throats. A passing familiarity with economics and how the country works indicates that poor immigrants are a sizable reason our economy thrives. The vast majority of jobs they take are jobs that Americans refuse to do for pay that is below minimum wage. If we paid people what they were supposed to get paid, if Americans took those jobs, our food prices would skyrocket. Orange juice would be a luxury. Unless people are willing to grow their own food, they should realize the US is using illegal immigrants as slave labor. This is widely known, and yet we turn our backs on the situation for cheap food.
Our country was founded on immigration. I would think a better alternative would be to make it easier for people to come in and get them to start paying taxes. But then we would have expensive food and we can't have that, can we? You can't have your oranges and your orange juice too. Choose. Humane treatment or cheap food?
Much ballyhoo has been made by the TPers about abortion being funded by Obamacare. This is a lie. Congress went to great lengths to ensure that no Federal money would go towards abortion. Yet the leaders of the TP seem to ignore that and intentionally spread lies.
The leaders of the TP know what they are saying is not right. But the TP is a party of anger and it is so easy to manipulate angry people. Anger clouds one's judgement and leaves one susceptible to manipulation. Decisions made in anger are almost always bad. People know this. but they are letting themselves be used. It is just sad that they can't see the cheats stealing from them. I mean, how clear does it have to be? Sarah Palin charges $100,000 for a speech. This amount is way out of line for speaking fees. If she truly believed what she was saying and she truly backed the TP movement, don't you think she would at the very least try to NOT bankrupt her constituents? The TP movement, outside of Palin's astounding speaking fees, is funded by primarily a few very wealthy individuals (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html). They are doing this so they can take control of a large section of government. They don't care about the political and religious beliefs of the common person. They care about lining their pockets. But as the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
To be a viable party that will get things done, they have to have a vision for what they want. Herein lies the problem. TPers don't stand FOR anything. The TP consists of a bunch of angry people. I can understand being angry. There is a lot to be angry about. But TPers are simply against what they see as things going wrong. They are against taxes, immigration, abortion, gay rights. They are not for anything. They have no vision, they only dislike what they see. You can't lead if you don't have anywhere to go.
A lot of the impetus for the TP was anger over the bank bailouts. Of course, it turned out that the bailouts wound up not costing very much at all. of the $700 Billion that was put aside for it, the government only wound up losing less than $30 Billion according to the latest announcents from the Congressional Budget Office. The reason for this is that when the banks found they had to be owned by the Federal Government and follow much stricter rules, they suddenly found they weren't so broke as they thought after all. Amazing how that worked. I admit I didn't like the bailouts either, but it seems I was wrong about their effect. What I don't like is that we wasted an opportunity to put in place meaningful regulatory controls, that the banks have for the most part gone back to their old practices. But this is not something the TPers are making noises about, which they should be.
TPers talk a lot about tax rates being too high. Of course, our tax rates are much lower now than they were in the past. So I would like to know how low is acceptable. Sadly, I have been told by some that paying any taxes is too much. This amount of greed and lack of any social conscience just sickens me. How is the government supposed to pay for the military that is so important, for the social security and medicare checks, for education, roads, and on and on and on. People don't seem to realize just how much they take from the Federal government, and yet they don't want to contribute.
TruthandPolitics has a nice chart showing the top tax brackets since 1913. Right now it is 35% for anything over $311,950. this is lower than almost any other time. Between 1988-92,the top tax bracket was slightly lower, but you have to go back to 1931 to find a lower rate otherwise. But from 1917-1925 it was higher than it is now. So for almost 100 years, there have only been 16 years with a lower maximal tax rate than now. And how much higher has it been? During WWII the maximal tax rate hit 94% because we were in a war and we needed it. Even though we have been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, no one seems to want to pay for it. We keep getting tax cuts instead. In 1932, the tax rate jumped from 25% to 63% and went up from there. It didn't drop below 70% again until 1981. In all honesty,we don't pay nearly what we used to pay in taxes. It is no wonder that our government is running a deficit. I won't even get into the fact that corporate taxes have virtually vanished, while the slack has been picked up by the middle class. That is a whole other kettle of worms.
As far as immigration goes, theTPers are trying to cut their own throats. A passing familiarity with economics and how the country works indicates that poor immigrants are a sizable reason our economy thrives. The vast majority of jobs they take are jobs that Americans refuse to do for pay that is below minimum wage. If we paid people what they were supposed to get paid, if Americans took those jobs, our food prices would skyrocket. Orange juice would be a luxury. Unless people are willing to grow their own food, they should realize the US is using illegal immigrants as slave labor. This is widely known, and yet we turn our backs on the situation for cheap food.
Our country was founded on immigration. I would think a better alternative would be to make it easier for people to come in and get them to start paying taxes. But then we would have expensive food and we can't have that, can we? You can't have your oranges and your orange juice too. Choose. Humane treatment or cheap food?
Much ballyhoo has been made by the TPers about abortion being funded by Obamacare. This is a lie. Congress went to great lengths to ensure that no Federal money would go towards abortion. Yet the leaders of the TP seem to ignore that and intentionally spread lies.
The leaders of the TP know what they are saying is not right. But the TP is a party of anger and it is so easy to manipulate angry people. Anger clouds one's judgement and leaves one susceptible to manipulation. Decisions made in anger are almost always bad. People know this. but they are letting themselves be used. It is just sad that they can't see the cheats stealing from them. I mean, how clear does it have to be? Sarah Palin charges $100,000 for a speech. This amount is way out of line for speaking fees. If she truly believed what she was saying and she truly backed the TP movement, don't you think she would at the very least try to NOT bankrupt her constituents? The TP movement, outside of Palin's astounding speaking fees, is funded by primarily a few very wealthy individuals (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html). They are doing this so they can take control of a large section of government. They don't care about the political and religious beliefs of the common person. They care about lining their pockets. But as the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
A Solution to the Gay Marriage Problem
I had a conversation with a coworker today about whether or nor homosexuals should be allowed to get married. He did not think they should be allowed. I think that it is discriminatory to prevent them. Because of the legal issues that have been created around marriage, it makes no sense to me that they are not allowed.
But then it struck me the obvious answer, at least to me, to fix the whole problem. I haven't heard anyone mention it yet and I am surprised it really just struck me today.
The problem to me is that marriage is an inherently social and religious contract. The main reason most people are against homosexuals getting married is that it conflicts with their own moral and religiouss code. Actually, to be honest, it doesn't really conflict with their religious code, but few people seem to really understand their own religious tenets, people just use their religion to promote their own personal beliefs and so they create religious tenets to support their own beliefs, but that is a digression.
Back to the point, is that our society has created legal arrangements based on these social contracts, and therin lies the problem. Because of the many legal ramifications of marriage, by barring homosexuals from getting married, we have created a second-class citizen that is being denied their rights simply onthe basis of who they love. Not only is this against American principles, but it goes against most people's religious beliefs unless one allows a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. But let's leave it with the fact that it is clearly discriminatory to homosexuals, despite the fact that it hurts no one.
The solution? I don't think government should be involved in marriage at all.We should return marriage into a strictly social and religious contract and remove all legal arrangements tied into marriage. Instead, we should only have civil unions for everyone. The government should only recognize civil unions, endowing them with all the legal arrangements given to marriages today.The sex of the individuals within the union should not be a concern.
Marriages could then be returned to a social contract. This way, if a church or social group does not choose to recognize such unions, they would be under no obligation to perform marriages for anyone they do not wish to. If a person chose to be married in a church, by a religious leader,they would be married in the eyes of that church and society in general. However, the government would recognize no difference between a civil union decreed by a Justice of the Peace and a marriage by a church.
This may sound like a simple game of semantics, but the entire issue is one of semantics caused by the confusion and intermixing of a social contract with legal issues. If we separate the two, then the problem does not exist.
Some people might say it is not so simple, there are legal issues involved. But that is exactly my point. We have created legal issues around the idea of marriage in which the government should not be involved.
For those that think homosexuals should not even be allowed civil unions, I have to ask what reason can you give other than homophobia? What they do has nothing to do with your religious or moral views, it does not hurt your marriage, it does not affect you in any way, so what right do you have to deny them the same rightsand privileges you enjoy?
This problem has been created through muddled thinking and hatred. It is time we put both aside.
But then it struck me the obvious answer, at least to me, to fix the whole problem. I haven't heard anyone mention it yet and I am surprised it really just struck me today.
The problem to me is that marriage is an inherently social and religious contract. The main reason most people are against homosexuals getting married is that it conflicts with their own moral and religiouss code. Actually, to be honest, it doesn't really conflict with their religious code, but few people seem to really understand their own religious tenets, people just use their religion to promote their own personal beliefs and so they create religious tenets to support their own beliefs, but that is a digression.
Back to the point, is that our society has created legal arrangements based on these social contracts, and therin lies the problem. Because of the many legal ramifications of marriage, by barring homosexuals from getting married, we have created a second-class citizen that is being denied their rights simply onthe basis of who they love. Not only is this against American principles, but it goes against most people's religious beliefs unless one allows a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. But let's leave it with the fact that it is clearly discriminatory to homosexuals, despite the fact that it hurts no one.
The solution? I don't think government should be involved in marriage at all.We should return marriage into a strictly social and religious contract and remove all legal arrangements tied into marriage. Instead, we should only have civil unions for everyone. The government should only recognize civil unions, endowing them with all the legal arrangements given to marriages today.The sex of the individuals within the union should not be a concern.
Marriages could then be returned to a social contract. This way, if a church or social group does not choose to recognize such unions, they would be under no obligation to perform marriages for anyone they do not wish to. If a person chose to be married in a church, by a religious leader,they would be married in the eyes of that church and society in general. However, the government would recognize no difference between a civil union decreed by a Justice of the Peace and a marriage by a church.
This may sound like a simple game of semantics, but the entire issue is one of semantics caused by the confusion and intermixing of a social contract with legal issues. If we separate the two, then the problem does not exist.
Some people might say it is not so simple, there are legal issues involved. But that is exactly my point. We have created legal issues around the idea of marriage in which the government should not be involved.
For those that think homosexuals should not even be allowed civil unions, I have to ask what reason can you give other than homophobia? What they do has nothing to do with your religious or moral views, it does not hurt your marriage, it does not affect you in any way, so what right do you have to deny them the same rightsand privileges you enjoy?
This problem has been created through muddled thinking and hatred. It is time we put both aside.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The Arrogance of Unstudied Certainty
I was talking someone yesterday that told me that World War II was what got us out of the Great Depression and that that could work today, although he hoped we didn't go down that road. This man is very intelligent. He holds a doctorate and has extensive experience. But he has absolutely no training in either economics or history. So it seems rather presumptuous to me that he could make that claim so matter-of-factly. How does he know? There are lots of real economic historians that would disagree with him. Many have stated that without FDR's New Deal, not only would we have never gotten out of the Great Depression, but we may very well have lost the war because we would have been ill-prepared to fight such a protracted and extensive war. Other historians agree that it was the war that did it. Others say it was a combination of factors, of which the war and FDR' New Deal played a part. The point here is that the professionals don't agree. So on what basis does someone that has never actually studied the problem presume to claim they know the right answer?
I see this sort of thing all the time. Probably the biggest example of this is with evolution. There are millions of people that tell biologists and paleontologists that have spent their lives studying life on earth that they don't know what they are talking about, the evolution couldn't possibly work. It does not seem to matter to these people that they have no idea what they are talking about, they are certain they are right, even though they have not studied the problem even briefly, much less spent decades looking at the evidence. No, because their preacher told them evolution is wrong, it must be so. I find this particularly sad that these same people often don't even understand the basic tenets of their own religion (see this Pew survey), which is the biggest reason they claim to disagree with evolution. My opinion? If atheists on average know more about your religion than you do, you have no business judging something else based on your supposed religious beliefs because you are too ignorant of your own basis of opinion to make any statement with any credence whatsoever.
Another example of this are the true nutcases that refuse to accept that people have actually visited the moon. They disregard the evidence of the pictures, the word of the people that actually went there, the samples brought back. Nothing convinces them. They instead continue to promote ideas they claim disprove the moon landing, ideas in which a passing familiarity with physics completely discredits and the rest of the ideas are destroyed with either a stronger knowledge of physics or common sense. No, they would rather believe their conspiracy ideas, which don't hold up to any serious examination. Fox television even ran a show supporting such nonsense (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2/). It doesn't see to matter that lots of physicists have demonstrated that it was indeed possible, but done and that the reasons given to "disprove" it are all fallacious. Nope, they know better, despite not having ever taken a science class in their lives.
And let's not forget the Flat Earth Society (actually, I am pretty sure, at least I hope, this particular site is a parody, but it pretty accurately displays the mindset and arguments used by many flat earthers). Despite overwhelming evidence, they still believe the earth is flat. To believe this, you have to throw out pretty much all of known physics. You have to disbelieve in cell phones or satellites. You have to disbelieve any chance at weather forecasting. You have to have no reasonable explanation for tides. You have to believe every pilot in the world is lying, not to mention just ignoring the evidence of your own eyes every day. In short, the universe has to be run by magic with a lot of really odd quirks that give the illusion of a spherical earth. Still, they know better than people who have actually flown around the earth and all the physicists and scientists over 2000 years that have said the earth is round. The Greek Eratosthenes figured this out more than 200 years before Christ. But hey, millions of people the world over for millennia are obviously wrong according to these people. They, who apparently have never opened a physics book, know better.
Does this sound insulting to other people's beliefs? There comes a point in which the sheer combined arrogance and ignorance of people drives me to frenzy. Sorry, but I can't be polite about the utter gall of these people. When you have to disregard the evidence of your own eyes to hold on to your beliefs, when the cognitive dissonance builds to the point that it is impossible to have rational conversation, sorry, but I can't give that opinion even polite forbearance. If you are going to disagree with an idea, that's fine, but make sure you have some idea of what you are talking about before you pretend certainty.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Body Language
Been a while since I’ve posted. I’ve been busy trying to write stuff I actually get paid for. So much to talk about, so many things I’ve seen that make me wonder just how irrational the human species can possibly be.
So let’s talk about strange things people think about perception and communication. Just for clarification, for the rest of this essay, whenever I say “you”, I am not referring to anyone in particular, so please don’t take offense. Unless you have said some of these things yourself, I am not talking about you in particular.
I was told recently that when I say, “I wish I could get you to understand my side of it,” it means I am criticizing them and saying they are not smart enough to understand. NO I AM NOT. I hate it when people put words into my mouth. What I meant was precisely what I said. I wish they could understand my point of view. My frustration is that I can’t figure out a way to communicate what I want. It does not mean you are too stupid, it means I am failing to communicate properly. This is a basic point of communication that many people don’t seem to understand. When two people are trying to communicate, if there is a failure to communicate, it is ALWAYS the failure of the person trying to communicate, not the communicate. It is the responsibility of the person trying to communicate to find a way that the other person understands. Some people are harder to communicate with than others, but since they can not be expected to be mindreaders, they can’t be held responsible for not understanding.
I have been told that the police, airport security, and others in the security business are specially trained in detecting and interpreting body language and “micro-expressions.” Too bad they aren’t qualified psychologists and even if they were, it wouldn’t mean anything. Example: a person who won’t look you in the eyes and keeps looking away is lying and trying to hide something, right? WRONG. It could mean that the person is simply shy, or perhaps they are nervous about being questioned by a cop, or maybe they’ve just had a really bad day, maybe they are distracted and worried about something else, or maybe they are somewhere on the autistic spectrum and they just aren’t comfortable looking anyone in the eyes. One last thing, if a person is perfectly comfortable lying, they are not going to be caught by this technique, because it assumes that a person will feel guilty about lying. So this wonderful technique only works on basically honest people that are caught not telling the truth, or maybe are just not having a good day, but it fails for the very people it is supposed to detect.
Another great one: a person crossing their arms in a conversation is supposed to be closed off and confrontational, not wanting to have an honest and open conversation. Or maybe they are just cold, or maybe they are socially insecure and don’t know what to do with their hands. There are any number of reasons they could be crossing their arms that have nothing to do with how “open” they are to the conversation.
Perhaps they are frowning when they are listening to you. They must be angry, right? Or, perhaps they just do that when they are concentrating and they are just concentrating on hearing what you have to say. Certainly that is what is going on with me most of the time.
When they are angry, when they sound irritated, that clearly means they are upset with you. Except when they are upset with themselves, or they have a headache, or maybe they just don’t hear tonal inflections well and don’t even realize they sound angry.
I could go on and on, but I’m tired and depressed that so many people believe this obvious fallacy that body language is so great. If it was so clear, people wouldn’t have all the miscommunication that occurs every day, all around us, all the time.
I had someone tell me that they hated having conversations in writing because the possibility was so much greater for miscommunication when all you could see were their words, they couldn’t read tonal inflections and the nonverbal communications. What is so difficult about just reading what words are written and taking them at face value without all the baggage of trying to read body language that is so vague and inaccurate? The written word allows you to say, “this is what you said, is this not what you meant.” Do you really expect me to take you seriously when you say things like, “your hip is turned this way, so you really meant this.” No, actually, it didn’t mean a damned thing that related to our conversation. It only meant I happened to be standing that way. You want to know what I think? Ask me and listen to what I actually say, don’t try to interpret my body language, because most likely you will be wrong.
So let’s talk about strange things people think about perception and communication. Just for clarification, for the rest of this essay, whenever I say “you”, I am not referring to anyone in particular, so please don’t take offense. Unless you have said some of these things yourself, I am not talking about you in particular.
I was told recently that when I say, “I wish I could get you to understand my side of it,” it means I am criticizing them and saying they are not smart enough to understand. NO I AM NOT. I hate it when people put words into my mouth. What I meant was precisely what I said. I wish they could understand my point of view. My frustration is that I can’t figure out a way to communicate what I want. It does not mean you are too stupid, it means I am failing to communicate properly. This is a basic point of communication that many people don’t seem to understand. When two people are trying to communicate, if there is a failure to communicate, it is ALWAYS the failure of the person trying to communicate, not the communicate. It is the responsibility of the person trying to communicate to find a way that the other person understands. Some people are harder to communicate with than others, but since they can not be expected to be mindreaders, they can’t be held responsible for not understanding.
I have been told that the police, airport security, and others in the security business are specially trained in detecting and interpreting body language and “micro-expressions.” Too bad they aren’t qualified psychologists and even if they were, it wouldn’t mean anything. Example: a person who won’t look you in the eyes and keeps looking away is lying and trying to hide something, right? WRONG. It could mean that the person is simply shy, or perhaps they are nervous about being questioned by a cop, or maybe they’ve just had a really bad day, maybe they are distracted and worried about something else, or maybe they are somewhere on the autistic spectrum and they just aren’t comfortable looking anyone in the eyes. One last thing, if a person is perfectly comfortable lying, they are not going to be caught by this technique, because it assumes that a person will feel guilty about lying. So this wonderful technique only works on basically honest people that are caught not telling the truth, or maybe are just not having a good day, but it fails for the very people it is supposed to detect.
Another great one: a person crossing their arms in a conversation is supposed to be closed off and confrontational, not wanting to have an honest and open conversation. Or maybe they are just cold, or maybe they are socially insecure and don’t know what to do with their hands. There are any number of reasons they could be crossing their arms that have nothing to do with how “open” they are to the conversation.
Perhaps they are frowning when they are listening to you. They must be angry, right? Or, perhaps they just do that when they are concentrating and they are just concentrating on hearing what you have to say. Certainly that is what is going on with me most of the time.
When they are angry, when they sound irritated, that clearly means they are upset with you. Except when they are upset with themselves, or they have a headache, or maybe they just don’t hear tonal inflections well and don’t even realize they sound angry.
I could go on and on, but I’m tired and depressed that so many people believe this obvious fallacy that body language is so great. If it was so clear, people wouldn’t have all the miscommunication that occurs every day, all around us, all the time.
I had someone tell me that they hated having conversations in writing because the possibility was so much greater for miscommunication when all you could see were their words, they couldn’t read tonal inflections and the nonverbal communications. What is so difficult about just reading what words are written and taking them at face value without all the baggage of trying to read body language that is so vague and inaccurate? The written word allows you to say, “this is what you said, is this not what you meant.” Do you really expect me to take you seriously when you say things like, “your hip is turned this way, so you really meant this.” No, actually, it didn’t mean a damned thing that related to our conversation. It only meant I happened to be standing that way. You want to know what I think? Ask me and listen to what I actually say, don’t try to interpret my body language, because most likely you will be wrong.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Fashion Faux Paus
It seems that a lot of people don't think about the activities they plan on participating in when they plan their wardrobe for the day, despite a great deal of planning about how they look, which seems to me to be rather backward. Mostly, it seems to be women, although guys do it sometimes too. Let me illustrate just a few things that I have seen that made me go hmm.
A woman at a local waterpark was wearing a string bikini. That in and of itself is not unusual. Women with the right form look great in them. Then again, it really doesn't matter what they wear if they can make a string bikini look good, so it is rather moot. No, what made this a seriously bad choice was that she was a mother with a little boy trailing along behind her. A little boy that saw interesting dangling strings within arm reach and, being a curious little boy, kept pulling on them. Needless to say, his mom was not too happy about her swim suit constantly being taken off in public. This could have been prevented quite easily if she had simply worn any other type of swimsuit. String bikinis are not the greatest choice for any woman that actually intends on swimming anyway as they have a tendency of slipping off in the type of activities that occur in water parks, say, on slides or in the wave pool. While this may be greatly amusing to all the guys there, I am not so sure it is that amusing to the women, or girls. Why anyone would send their 6 year old daughters to a water park in a string bikini is beyond me, but I see it all the time. No, string bikinis really only have one purpose, to make guys imagine pulling those strings. Seriously girls, if you aren't planning on guys doing that so you can have a wild bout of sex, you might want to rethink making your swimsuit the one second to naked variety.
Another thing I see women do on a regular basis is wearing miniskirts and a light blouse no matter how cold it is, then of course they complain about being cold. If this is not a ploy to get guys to invite them into their room, I don't know what is. You might as well be putting a sign on yourself saying you are available and ready for sex. Unless it is hot outside, miniskirts are designed to make men think of women as purely sex objects. No woman can expect to be taken seriously while wearing them, unless by seriously one means with serious intent to screw. Women dress like this to indicate they are sexy, but in reality it mostly indicates they are stupid and desperate. Miniskirts certainly have their place and are quite appropriate in the right circumstance, but that circumstance is not when the temperature is below freezing.
High heels are another thing that seems rather ill thought out. They seem to be designed by sadistic podiatrists to drum up business because they are about the worst thing a person can do to their feet. This is not exactly news to women, yet they still insist on wearing them. Don't get me wrong, I like to see a good looking woman in high heels as much as the next guy, they certainly have their place. One such place is when the woman is trying to look sexy with the intent to carry out that implied intent at some point in the near future. However, if a woman is trying to be taken seriously as a person with a brain and not just a nice ass, and/or they are on their feet for extended periods, high heels are just plain dumb. If women want to be taken seriously, dressing like they are advertising sex is probably not the way to do it. I am not saying women have to dress frumpy, which is the typical complaint women make when people bring this up, but when one dresses to highlight certain physical characteristics, they have no justification for complaining when people assume intent behind that mode of dress. There are lots of ways to dress and look nice without advertising sexual availability. Women may also bring up the height differential. In some cases, this may be a valid point, height does confer a social advantage in our society. But this social pressure is not as high on women as it is on men. Not to say it isn't there, it is just not as strong. But mostly, my disagreement here is on the type of shoe chosen. The stiletto heels with pointed toes are not designed to promote a height advantage, they are designed solely for appearance. That appearance to me says look, I am a ditz that is willing to permanently damage my feet in the hopes of attracting a guy to take care of me because I am incapable of doing so for myself, unless of course, the social situation is one in which people are expected to make oneself attractive for the opposite gender. At parties or social gathering outside of work, a woman can dress in such a way without any statements made about their intelligence or ability. At work though, it just says ditzy. On the other hand, a wider heel with a broader toe indicates that a woman feels the need to be taller (which, there are plenty of times in which this is a valid concern, both physically and socially) but has some thought about her feet. This type of woman can be taken seriously in a work environment.
To sum this section up, if a woman walks into my office to talk about her grade and she is dressed modestly, I am going to assume she is willing to conversely intelligently about her grade and I will be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. If she comes in wearing a lowcut blouse with no bra and a miniskirt, I am going to assume she is going to try to sway my opinion with sex appeal, or an implicit offer of sex (because yes, this is a not uncommon tactic in universities). This is going to make me want to get away from her as fast as possible (as I don't want to lose my job) and will certainly result in no improvement of her grade. There are plenty of instructors on whom this behavior works, but that helps no one and the instructors really should be canned as that sort of behavior is damaging to the goal of school for all concerned.
I should point out that men also wear high heels upon occasion. This usually takes the form of cowboy boots. In the country, there are good reasons for them. If one is actually riding horses, the heel is a utilitarian device. In an urban landscape, the only benefit is to be taller and look masculine. Mostly it makes them look like stupid posers. Look guys, everyone knows you're not a cowboy and wouldn't be able to ride a horse if your life depended on it, so cut the charade, alright? Unless you're going to a country bar and dressing for the occasion, you just look dumb.
The other big mistake that men and women make in the shoe department is to wear nice shoes even when they are going someplace that requires them to walk in the mud. I have seen so many people go on field trips in which they know they are going to be walking around in the muck wearing expensive shoes that get ruined. The women have it even worse, because stiletto heels just don't work in mud. Every time I see that, I just have to wonder why they even bothered to show up. The rest of the class that dressed appropriately are just laughing at them. Here's a tip, if you are going hiking, miniskirts and high heels? Not such a good idea. Try jeans and comfortable shoes. The women who dress appropriately get much more respect from the guys (the guys who don't dress appropriately are just hopeless twits, the less said about the better).
One final fashion faux paus. If you are in a place in which there is a decent chance of dropping something on your toes or spilling something on your clothes, you might want to consider wearing appropriate clothing. Sandals and shorts are not good things to wear in a machine shop, or a lab, or similar places. Playing with children dressed in expensive clothes just means a huge cleaning bill. Don't try your hand at painting or cooking while wearing designer duds.
All this seems common sense, but as we all know, common sense is not so common. A tip to those that might still have some brain matter between their ears: try to dress like you mean it. Think about what you will be doing, then dress appropriately for the occasion. How hard is that?
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Glen Beck is a Con
I have never understood why people support Glen Beck. He is the worst kind of con artist, an obvious one.
Beck spends a lot of his time telling us just how bad the Democrats are ruining the country. According to him, the economy is due to catastrophically collapse any minute. His solution for people is for them to buy gold, because when the economy collapses and money is worthless, gold will be the only thing that will hold its value. So of course he is in the business of selling gold. he is making a fortune off convincing people the economy is tanking when he doesn't believe it himself.
Why is it obvious he doesn't believe it? Several reasons. First and foremost, if he really believed it, he would not be selling his gold. He would be keeping it for himself. Moreover, he would not be taking currency for his gold because, according to him, all that currency that he is working so hard to collect, is going to soon be worthless.
Continuing on, a little basic economy research indicates that gold is a good investment when the market is low, but a very bad investment when the market is going up. The gold brokers know this, so when they are pushing gold, that should be a sign that they think the economy is going to improve. The thing is, you want to buy gold when the economy is good, because the price of gold tends to be low, so when the economy tanks, you can sell it for a great price. This is what the gold brokers are doing. They are trying to get people to buy it now because they, NOT YOU, are going to make a killing. Gold is really high right now, the brokers like Beck will make a fortune if you buy it now.
The other thing I fail to see why people don't question, is if the economy tanks and currency becomes worthless, why do people think gold is going to be any better? When people are desperate, they are interested in food, clothing, shelter, and power. Gold will do none of these things. It is no better than currency when it comes down to it. If you really thought the economy was going to collapse, gold would not be what you would be stocking up on. You would find a place that you could grow your own food, buy some goats (easier to take care of than cows) or sheep, and invest in ways to take your home off the electrical grid. You would be adding solar power, geothermal, and/or other green energy sources that would supply you with all the power you need. You would be learning medical skills and engineering.
What you would NOT be doing is amassing a hoard of worthless yellow minerals. Obtain knowledge, don't waste your time on worthless bling. You can't eat gold, it won't keep you warm at night, it won't even keep the rain off your head. Gold has worth only because people are willing to buy it to show how wealthy they are. But that wealth only has worth in a functioning economy.
Glen Beck obviously really thinks the economy is doing ok, ar at least well enough that your money will still buy him lots of stuff and that it will continue to do so in the forseeable future. Don't be an idiot. Keep your money.
ADDENDUM: I actually forgot the other huge thing that points to Beck being a liar in this situation. He doesn't want people to gold bullion. He wants people to buy rare gold coins that are vastly overpriced. How much overpriced? As much as 10x the real value of the gold. Here is a great infographic that shows just how badly Beck is lying: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/glenn-beck-goldline/
Beck spends a lot of his time telling us just how bad the Democrats are ruining the country. According to him, the economy is due to catastrophically collapse any minute. His solution for people is for them to buy gold, because when the economy collapses and money is worthless, gold will be the only thing that will hold its value. So of course he is in the business of selling gold. he is making a fortune off convincing people the economy is tanking when he doesn't believe it himself.
Why is it obvious he doesn't believe it? Several reasons. First and foremost, if he really believed it, he would not be selling his gold. He would be keeping it for himself. Moreover, he would not be taking currency for his gold because, according to him, all that currency that he is working so hard to collect, is going to soon be worthless.
Continuing on, a little basic economy research indicates that gold is a good investment when the market is low, but a very bad investment when the market is going up. The gold brokers know this, so when they are pushing gold, that should be a sign that they think the economy is going to improve. The thing is, you want to buy gold when the economy is good, because the price of gold tends to be low, so when the economy tanks, you can sell it for a great price. This is what the gold brokers are doing. They are trying to get people to buy it now because they, NOT YOU, are going to make a killing. Gold is really high right now, the brokers like Beck will make a fortune if you buy it now.
The other thing I fail to see why people don't question, is if the economy tanks and currency becomes worthless, why do people think gold is going to be any better? When people are desperate, they are interested in food, clothing, shelter, and power. Gold will do none of these things. It is no better than currency when it comes down to it. If you really thought the economy was going to collapse, gold would not be what you would be stocking up on. You would find a place that you could grow your own food, buy some goats (easier to take care of than cows) or sheep, and invest in ways to take your home off the electrical grid. You would be adding solar power, geothermal, and/or other green energy sources that would supply you with all the power you need. You would be learning medical skills and engineering.
What you would NOT be doing is amassing a hoard of worthless yellow minerals. Obtain knowledge, don't waste your time on worthless bling. You can't eat gold, it won't keep you warm at night, it won't even keep the rain off your head. Gold has worth only because people are willing to buy it to show how wealthy they are. But that wealth only has worth in a functioning economy.
Glen Beck obviously really thinks the economy is doing ok, ar at least well enough that your money will still buy him lots of stuff and that it will continue to do so in the forseeable future. Don't be an idiot. Keep your money.
ADDENDUM: I actually forgot the other huge thing that points to Beck being a liar in this situation. He doesn't want people to gold bullion. He wants people to buy rare gold coins that are vastly overpriced. How much overpriced? As much as 10x the real value of the gold. Here is a great infographic that shows just how badly Beck is lying: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/glenn-beck-goldline/
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Recall Sanity
UPDATE: When I wrote this, I was suffering from sleep deprivation. There is a serious logical flaw in it that does a wonderful job of pretty much demolishing my point. I thought a good while about simply taking down the post, but I decided to leave it up for a few reasons. 1) It is a shining example of how sleep deprivation does indeed negatively affect performance, 2) it illustrates why one should not think statistics when tired, 3) the main idea is still valid, I think, even if there is a serious flaw in the example, and 4) it will be interesting to see if anyone reading this will pick up on the mistake other than me. I will say again though, the main idea of the post is still valid in today's overly fear-driven society and is something we all need to think about. Are the fears we panic about really significant compared to dangers we ignore? Just how messed up are our priorities?
The United States has decided to recall sanity. What am I talking about? The decision to recall 380 million eggs from all across the country because "hundreds" of people in a four state area have gotten sick due to salmonella. No one has died, just gotten sick.
Why do I think this is an overreaction? Consider the odds of getting salmonella from one of these possibly infected eggs. The number of salmonella cases in the country that has been attributed to this particular outbreak number less than 300. Consider that according to the CDC, the total number of salmonella cases every year from all sources is about 4000, I hardly think this qualifies as something to worry about. But if we take the 300 cases, that means that there is less than a 1 in a million chance of getting salmonella from the eggs being recalled.
Let's compare this to a few other facts, shall we? According to Eggsafety.org, the chances of getting exposed to salmonella in eggs just normally is 1:20,000, which, they estimate, means you should eat an egg with salmonella, on average, once every 84 years. Seems to me the chances of getting salmonella from the NON-recalled eggs is certainly no worse than getting it from the recalled eggs.Now admittedly, we are comparing numbers of people who actually got sick, supposedly from contaminated eggs, to the number of people who get exposed to the salmonella bacteria, which are not at all the same. Still, it is clear that the recalled eggs are not exactly posing a major health hazard.
Let's compare this with some other statistics. The national Weather Service estimates your chances of being struck by lightning this year are between 1/500,000 to 1/750,000. Being struck by lightning in your entire life runs you a risk of about 1/6250. Most people don't panic overly much about being struck by lightning because it is a real, but very rare event. But it is MUCH MORE LIKELY than getting salmonella from these recalled eggs.
Now, suppose you beat the astronomical odds and actually get an egg with salmonella. How dangerous is it? If you bother to cook it and don't eat it raw, the chances of actually contracting salmonella is approximately, um...uh...ZERO because cooking the egg kills the bacteria. Turns out these particular bacteria are not that resistant to heat.
Suppose you really beat the odds and get an infected egg AND you eat it raw AND you get sick. How dangerous is it? The answer? Not all that much. You will get nauseous, you may vomit, get a fever, diarrhea, and in general feel sicker than a dog, but you will be fine in a few days with no, ahem, ill effects. Most likely, you will simply feel a little queasy like you ate something that didn't agree with you and you won't miss a lick of work. Sorry bout that. It is possible you may get so sick that you could die if completely cut off from any sort of health care, but that is really, really, really unlikely unless you are a) very young, b) very old, or c) already sick as a dog from something else, in which case you may die if your neighbor sneezes in your general direction.
All in all, I'm not seeing the threat here, certainly not one worth spending millions of dollars and scaring lots of people about. So apparently, we are not recalling eggs per se, but any shred of sanity.
The United States has decided to recall sanity. What am I talking about? The decision to recall 380 million eggs from all across the country because "hundreds" of people in a four state area have gotten sick due to salmonella. No one has died, just gotten sick.
Why do I think this is an overreaction? Consider the odds of getting salmonella from one of these possibly infected eggs. The number of salmonella cases in the country that has been attributed to this particular outbreak number less than 300. Consider that according to the CDC, the total number of salmonella cases every year from all sources is about 4000, I hardly think this qualifies as something to worry about. But if we take the 300 cases, that means that there is less than a 1 in a million chance of getting salmonella from the eggs being recalled.
Let's compare this to a few other facts, shall we? According to Eggsafety.org, the chances of getting exposed to salmonella in eggs just normally is 1:20,000, which, they estimate, means you should eat an egg with salmonella, on average, once every 84 years. Seems to me the chances of getting salmonella from the NON-recalled eggs is certainly no worse than getting it from the recalled eggs.Now admittedly, we are comparing numbers of people who actually got sick, supposedly from contaminated eggs, to the number of people who get exposed to the salmonella bacteria, which are not at all the same. Still, it is clear that the recalled eggs are not exactly posing a major health hazard.
Let's compare this with some other statistics. The national Weather Service estimates your chances of being struck by lightning this year are between 1/500,000 to 1/750,000. Being struck by lightning in your entire life runs you a risk of about 1/6250. Most people don't panic overly much about being struck by lightning because it is a real, but very rare event. But it is MUCH MORE LIKELY than getting salmonella from these recalled eggs.
Now, suppose you beat the astronomical odds and actually get an egg with salmonella. How dangerous is it? If you bother to cook it and don't eat it raw, the chances of actually contracting salmonella is approximately, um...uh...ZERO because cooking the egg kills the bacteria. Turns out these particular bacteria are not that resistant to heat.
Suppose you really beat the odds and get an infected egg AND you eat it raw AND you get sick. How dangerous is it? The answer? Not all that much. You will get nauseous, you may vomit, get a fever, diarrhea, and in general feel sicker than a dog, but you will be fine in a few days with no, ahem, ill effects. Most likely, you will simply feel a little queasy like you ate something that didn't agree with you and you won't miss a lick of work. Sorry bout that. It is possible you may get so sick that you could die if completely cut off from any sort of health care, but that is really, really, really unlikely unless you are a) very young, b) very old, or c) already sick as a dog from something else, in which case you may die if your neighbor sneezes in your general direction.
All in all, I'm not seeing the threat here, certainly not one worth spending millions of dollars and scaring lots of people about. So apparently, we are not recalling eggs per se, but any shred of sanity.
Privitization Sucks
A lot of people complain about the government and how inefficient they are. But they seem to forget that private companies are just as bad, and in many ways worse because they put profits over anything else.
Today is the first day of school for my kids. Let me tell you what my morning was like.
My daughter had to get to the bus stop early because the private bus company is woefully inefficient and is deaf to the needs of their customers. They were unable to let the schools, and therefore us, know what number the bus that was supposed to pick up my daughter would be until a few days before school, despite the fact that we were supposed to inform the school over a week earlier. The bus company also thinks it is just fine to make a 5 year old girl walk four blocks at 6 AM to meet her bus. The company refused to change the bus stop closer to our house despite the fact that they have another one of their buses drive RIGHT BY OUR HOUSE!
Of course, this actually assumes she survives to be picked up. As we waited for the bus (I chose to wait with her as if the bus did not pick her up, it would be too late to take her to school by the time she could walk back to the house), we were nearly run over by buses that were speeding through the residential area. I have no idea if one of the buses that drive by was hers or not as they were marked with tiny placards in the windows that could only be read if the bus was stopped and you were at the door about to get on, which by this time, you probably have some idea whether it is your bus or not. Of course, if the bus comes screaming by you doing 40 or more in a 25 mph zone, you have no chance to read the placard at all. In case you were wondering, we were waiting in plain view, outside the car, so it wasn't like they couldn't see us and just missed us. They simply weren't paying attention, more concerned with making their schedule than actually picking up kids without killing them in the process.
On the way to work, I found that the privitized road construction crews had started several new jobs on the first day of school, closing several busy intersections to one lane traffic hazards. What moron scheduled this I have no idea, but surely they could have checked the schedule and realized that today, of all days, might be a bad time to make it nearly impossible to drive across town in any sort of reasonable time frame.
When I get to work, I find that the private parking lot that my university uses had been blocked off. Why I have no idea. They didn't bother to tell us that we were not going to be able to park in the lot that about half of the university uses. We just show up to work to find that we have to park somewhere else and hoof it even farther than the half mile the parking is away from campus as it stands.
To make matters worse, the idiots that blocked off the lot forgot to block all the entrances. Those of us that come in the back way found that we had to turn around and leave because the front entrances were blocked off and we weren't actually supposed to be there, causing to us to have to drive all the way around the block, which could have been avoided if they had simply done their jobs correctly, or even, you know, told us in advance.
I decide to call the bus company and complain about the transit situation once I get to work. Only I never get anyone to talk to. What I get instead is a recording that tells me they don't answer the phones until 8 AM (which it was already after that) and that I really should have tried to get things straightened out before school started and it will be close to two weeks before I can get anything done at this point. Clearly, any complaints are surely the fault of their customers simply not planning ahead and not the fault of the bus company, at least according to them. I finally get a phone number that does NOT give me an insulting message. This one simply says they will be right with me and then proceeds to ignore me for the next 45 minutes. They eventually even stop playing the recording that my business is important to them and they will be right with me and leave me with a dead line.
Somehow, I can't imagine that the government could possibly do any worse. At least with the government, if I find someone to complain to about homicidal bus drivers and idiot construction crew, I rarely get the "suck it" response I get from private companies with government contracts.
And could someone please tell me how it is that the city could possibly be saving money by paying a company to run the buses for a profit rather than just doing it themselves? All the prices are the same, except that the company adds an extra fee to give themselves a profit. We would then also have the advantage that the school districts would actually have some idea what the buses were doing rather than having to tell the parents that the buses cannot be counted on the first two weeks of school.
A friend of mine worked for a phone company and he explained how they handled outsourcing. Outsourcing actually cost the company a fortune, but because the outsourcing was handled through a different department, each department individually looked like it was saving money. They had one department with no workers and 37 supervisors, because all the staff that actually did anything was outsourced. On the departments bookkeeping, they made a killing. The poor outsourcing department though was always in trouble for being seriously in the red. I suppose they outsourced their work too. It was patently obvious to virtually everyone that the costs to the company as a whole was more than paying for the work in-house, but since the bookkeeping was done on a departmental basis, the accountants and the top administrators never seemed to see this. to me, this is abysmally stupid and detrimental to the company. But this is apparently standard business practice.
So, if all businesses are this stupid (and from what I have seen, most government administrators are too), we should be seriously asking for our money back from all these administration and business schools, because they are teaching crap.
ADDENDUM: More than 4 hours after I arrived at work today, I received an email informing me that the parking lot would be closed due to a boat/RV show. I kinda already figured out the lot was closed, although it is good to know it will still be closed tomorrow and the next day. As Adam Sandler said in "The Wedding Singer", "This is something you could have told me YESTERDAY!"
Today is the first day of school for my kids. Let me tell you what my morning was like.
My daughter had to get to the bus stop early because the private bus company is woefully inefficient and is deaf to the needs of their customers. They were unable to let the schools, and therefore us, know what number the bus that was supposed to pick up my daughter would be until a few days before school, despite the fact that we were supposed to inform the school over a week earlier. The bus company also thinks it is just fine to make a 5 year old girl walk four blocks at 6 AM to meet her bus. The company refused to change the bus stop closer to our house despite the fact that they have another one of their buses drive RIGHT BY OUR HOUSE!
Of course, this actually assumes she survives to be picked up. As we waited for the bus (I chose to wait with her as if the bus did not pick her up, it would be too late to take her to school by the time she could walk back to the house), we were nearly run over by buses that were speeding through the residential area. I have no idea if one of the buses that drive by was hers or not as they were marked with tiny placards in the windows that could only be read if the bus was stopped and you were at the door about to get on, which by this time, you probably have some idea whether it is your bus or not. Of course, if the bus comes screaming by you doing 40 or more in a 25 mph zone, you have no chance to read the placard at all. In case you were wondering, we were waiting in plain view, outside the car, so it wasn't like they couldn't see us and just missed us. They simply weren't paying attention, more concerned with making their schedule than actually picking up kids without killing them in the process.
On the way to work, I found that the privitized road construction crews had started several new jobs on the first day of school, closing several busy intersections to one lane traffic hazards. What moron scheduled this I have no idea, but surely they could have checked the schedule and realized that today, of all days, might be a bad time to make it nearly impossible to drive across town in any sort of reasonable time frame.
When I get to work, I find that the private parking lot that my university uses had been blocked off. Why I have no idea. They didn't bother to tell us that we were not going to be able to park in the lot that about half of the university uses. We just show up to work to find that we have to park somewhere else and hoof it even farther than the half mile the parking is away from campus as it stands.
To make matters worse, the idiots that blocked off the lot forgot to block all the entrances. Those of us that come in the back way found that we had to turn around and leave because the front entrances were blocked off and we weren't actually supposed to be there, causing to us to have to drive all the way around the block, which could have been avoided if they had simply done their jobs correctly, or even, you know, told us in advance.
I decide to call the bus company and complain about the transit situation once I get to work. Only I never get anyone to talk to. What I get instead is a recording that tells me they don't answer the phones until 8 AM (which it was already after that) and that I really should have tried to get things straightened out before school started and it will be close to two weeks before I can get anything done at this point. Clearly, any complaints are surely the fault of their customers simply not planning ahead and not the fault of the bus company, at least according to them. I finally get a phone number that does NOT give me an insulting message. This one simply says they will be right with me and then proceeds to ignore me for the next 45 minutes. They eventually even stop playing the recording that my business is important to them and they will be right with me and leave me with a dead line.
Somehow, I can't imagine that the government could possibly do any worse. At least with the government, if I find someone to complain to about homicidal bus drivers and idiot construction crew, I rarely get the "suck it" response I get from private companies with government contracts.
And could someone please tell me how it is that the city could possibly be saving money by paying a company to run the buses for a profit rather than just doing it themselves? All the prices are the same, except that the company adds an extra fee to give themselves a profit. We would then also have the advantage that the school districts would actually have some idea what the buses were doing rather than having to tell the parents that the buses cannot be counted on the first two weeks of school.
A friend of mine worked for a phone company and he explained how they handled outsourcing. Outsourcing actually cost the company a fortune, but because the outsourcing was handled through a different department, each department individually looked like it was saving money. They had one department with no workers and 37 supervisors, because all the staff that actually did anything was outsourced. On the departments bookkeeping, they made a killing. The poor outsourcing department though was always in trouble for being seriously in the red. I suppose they outsourced their work too. It was patently obvious to virtually everyone that the costs to the company as a whole was more than paying for the work in-house, but since the bookkeeping was done on a departmental basis, the accountants and the top administrators never seemed to see this. to me, this is abysmally stupid and detrimental to the company. But this is apparently standard business practice.
So, if all businesses are this stupid (and from what I have seen, most government administrators are too), we should be seriously asking for our money back from all these administration and business schools, because they are teaching crap.
ADDENDUM: More than 4 hours after I arrived at work today, I received an email informing me that the parking lot would be closed due to a boat/RV show. I kinda already figured out the lot was closed, although it is good to know it will still be closed tomorrow and the next day. As Adam Sandler said in "The Wedding Singer", "This is something you could have told me YESTERDAY!"
Friday, August 13, 2010
Evolution Works
I've been gone partially due to technical issues. OpenOffice is great, but it turns out there are some reasons to actually go ahead and buy the real thing. Anyway, onward!
I was recently told that evolution couldn't possibly work because it would take billions of mutations in every species to get the number of mutations needed to drive evolution. There is a lot wrong with this statement, the first of which is that mutation rate is only a small part of the genetic variation that drives evolution. This person, like so many that argue against evolution, has no understanding of how evolution works, nor of the mechanisms genetic variation.
I won't go into a long defense of evolution here, but I thought I would address his statement of the billions of mutations that we don't see, according to him. How many mutations can we really expect? The answer is vastly greater than most people realize.
DNA is well protected by several molecular mechanisms designed to ensure an accurate duplication. But mistakes, or mutations, will occur no matterhow good the quality control process. Mutation rate varies tremendously depending on the conditions, but in humans, the average mutation rate is 2.5 x 10^-8 (0.000000025) per nucleotide (http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297). This means that there is one mutation for every 250,000,000 nucleotides. Sounds pretty good doesn't it?
The problem here is that there are 3 billion basepairs in the human genome, or 6 billion nucleotides (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/HumanheyGenome/faq/faqs1.shtml). This means there are 150 mistakes each time it is replicated (the paper cited above states there 175 errors per doubling, but we will go with these conservative numbers).
Ok, so nowhere near the billions we need, right? But consider just how many times we need to copy that DNA every time we try to have sex. I am going to leave women out of this because the number of mutations women contribute is so small compared to men that it is insignificant. You'll see why in just a second, but it is safe to say that the vast majority of mutation driven evolution is driven by men.
The number of sperm in one ejaculation, even if we use the lower than commonly reported values here (http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/iju/vol2n1/sperm.xml), is about 50 million sperm/ml and there are 2-6 ml/ejaculate. So we'll be conservative again and use 3 ml, giving 150 million sperm/ejaculate (also note that the paper cited above on mutation rate says that males have 4 times the mutation rate of females, but we will go with the average stated). One should also keep in mind that most places report 250-300 million sperm in the average ejaculate.
So, if there are 150 mistakes in every sperm, there are 150 x 150 million = 22500 million, or 22.5 billion mistakes in every ejaculation. So every time every single male ejaculates, he is supplying more than enough mutations to drive evolution for the whole human race according to the creationist that was pontificating to me.
But wait! There's more! There are over approximately 2.23 billion males between 15-64 on the planet right now (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html). So, assuming that we count one ejaculation for each man, that is 5x 10^19 mutations.
Estimates vary as to how many times the average man ejaculates in his life, but most estimates are between 5-8,000 times. But let's only count ones that are in the age range that most men are fathering babies and only count the number of times that the man is actually having sex, so those sperm have a chance of making a baby. No matter where you go, every survey and study lists the average person as having sex at least 100 times a year. But let's assume that is way more than the "average" and let's only count, say, 200 times in their entire life. That means that there are 10^21 mutations in every generation of human males.
That number puts the national debt to shame. So it is clear that evolution has plenty of material to work with. This is precisely why the problem is NOT getting enough variation. The problem is why don't we evolve faster? Fortunately, modern evolutionary theory has answers for that too in the form of stabilizing selection and numerous other methods to keep evolution from going crazy.
So be prepared, the next time any of you tell me that evolution can't work because there aren't enough mutations, I will laugh in your face and mock you mercilessly.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Random Traffic Statements
I'm not a big traffic nazi, but there are some things that bug me, so I thought I'd share some advice.
In most cars, there is a small stick coming off the left of the steering shaft. You might be familiar with it as it is often the control for the headlights. But it does have another function. It's called a turn signal. I suggest you learn how to use it. When I am trying to cross a busy street, it would be nice if that car that is slowing down is going to turn, giving me a chance to cross, or not. It is also nice when you go cruising across three lanes of traffic right in front of me as I drive down the highway.
When I am driving down the highway at 5 over the limit, it is probably not a good idea to be within ten feet of my rear bumper. If some idiot slides in front of me without signaling, I might tap my brake and then we all die. So back off a bit.
You might see occasionally a octagonal red sign with the letters STOP. This is called a stop sign. It means you are supposed to stop before continuing. Now if it is the middle of the night and no one is around, it might seem ok to not stop completely, I get that. But it is the middle of the day and there is traffic and possibly pedestrians, you might consider not trying to kill us.
There are also lights that hang over the street. When the light turns red, you are supposed to stop and NOT continue through the intersection. It does not matter that the light turned red just before you got there, you really should stop, before, say, running me over because I stupidly thought I could go while my light is green.
Also, please try to pay some attention to the road more often you pay attention to your phone and just so you know, the rear view mirror while driving down the highway is not a good time and place to apply makeup or shave.
Please try to wait and hold your coffee klatches at some point when you are not blocking traffic, ok? If it is really that important that you chat, pull off the road and let other people use the road.
But it's ok, all you have to do is flash your lights and not worry. Wait, lights? It is bad enough when civilians do it, but when police do it, it is much worse. Hardly a day goes by that I don't see a policeman blatantly ignoring the most basic traffic laws or even common sense. You should realize that any time a policeman breaks the law that he is supposed to be upholding, you make your job harder. You tell everyone who sees you that you have no respect for the law, so when you punish people for breaking the law, you are being a hypocrite and give us the impression you are nothing more than a thug with a badge who likes to harass people. If you don't respect the law, why should anyone else? When we get punished for breaking the law, we are told that we are not in trouble for breaking the law, we are only in trouble for being caught. The law is not something to protect us and guide good behavior, it is simply a tool of torture for our capricious leaders. You tell us that it is ok to be a criminal, the law doesn't matter, just don't do it in public. So is beating your wife ok, just so long you don't make a public scene out of it? You can't expect a law-abiding society when those enforcing the laws are also criminals.
I should note here that I have only talked about traffic laws, but that is only because the traffic violations are things that a lot of people do and they are visible to people everywhere. But I have seen much worse. Police that steal, physically assault people, and commit many other crimes are not uncommon. According to the Harper Index, prostitutes are only slightly more likely to be arrested by police as they are to be forced to provide services. If police can't be trusted, we can't trust much about our society and we have no reason to pay attention to the laws. And that means our society is a failure as a just society, that we are not going toward a society we can be proud of, but away from it.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Do Not Let the Nazis Win
The journal Science had two articles by Heather Pringle in the July 16, 2010 issue (vol. 329, issue 5989) concerning the anatomical samples and illustrations derived from executed Nazi prisoners. Ms. Pringle (pp. 274-275) reported on Pernkopf's Atlas, a premier anatomical atlas that used illustrations from the prisoners and in a more general article discussed the other tissues samples and studies. The general consensus, even though the topic is hotly debated, seems to be that we shouldn't use them anymore because they came from Nazis and to use them shows a disrespect for the victims and possibly can be seen as condoning the actions of the Nazis, thereby making anyone who uses the material accomplices to their murder. This is exemplified by the 2003 actions of the German Medical Council, who recommended that German universities remove from their collections all specimens that came from Nazi victims and bury all human remains.
While I understand their feelings and their wanting to show respect for the victims, I disagree. The anatomists that collected the samples and made the illustrations did not cause the deaths of any of the victims, they merely received the corpses that were made available. These people would have been killed anyway, and more importantly, would have been lost and forgotten about. Yes, some of the anatomists were Nazis and had no problems with the executions. Nevertheless, they created a useful legacy from a pointless, cruel, and unwarranted death. The researchers and students that are using the material now were certainly guiltless in the collections of the samples. Should our society be punished by denying any good that can come from a tragedy, by not allowing use of the knowledge gained from such bloodshed as would have happened anyway?
It seems to me that these samples and illustrations should be properly marked as to who they came from, so that their use will allow those people to continue to live on in a positive manner that will give their deaths more meaning than simply a statistic in the death counts. Are we to deny the victims this consolation? By removing everything that came from them and burying them, it seems to me that we are killing them again. Only this time, we are truly complicit with the Nazis because we are choosing to forget these people rather than honoring them by keeping them alive in the memories of new generations of students and researchers who can create better lives for people in the future. This seems to me the best way to deny the Nazis another victory, by ensuring that their deaths did not erase these people from memory as the Nazis intended.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Common Nonsensical Behavior: What is wrong with Sidewalks?
Short post today. On the way in to work this morning, I almost ran over several people who were walking in the street. What makes this very strange to me is that there was a nice, wide, well maintained sidewalk right next to them.
To all you people that refuse to use the perfectly good sidewalks and prefer to walk in the street where there are cars, WHY?! Why won't you use the sidewalks? The city spends a lot of money to give you a safe place to walk where you won't endanger yourself, where you won't endanger other people, where you won't cause traffic problems. What the hell is your problem?!
Really, please, someone explain this behavior to me. It seems completely nonsensical to me, very self-absorbed, self-centered, outright intentionally rude and inconsiderate, and rather stupid from a personal safety standpoint. Are you performing an experiment to see if people will really run you over? Are you trying to prove you are more important than anyone else trying to drive down the street where they actually have the right to do by doing something you don't have a good reason to do?
I could understand this behavior if the sidewalk was blocked, or was in such bad shape that it couldn't be walked on easily, or if it was too crowded to handle all the traffic. But tell me why people still do this when the sidewalk is perfectly good and no one else is using it.
What is so appealing about the road, where multi-ton vehicles are traveling, that make you people ignore the sidewalks where you are supposed to be walking? Why do we waste our money providing you with things that you ignore in favor of creating hazardous conditions for yourself and the people around you?
Do you have an answer? Are you just crazy? If you have a good, valid reason, I will gladly apologize, but right now, you people just seem crazy to me.
ADDENDUM: Someone gave me a couple of reasons for why they choose to walk in the street rather than the sidewalk, thank you. so I thought I'd share their reasons.
1. They don't like the up and down of going over the curbs at the side streets. This reason was given by some joggers. I thought I'd mention that because they are out there jogging on the streets for exercise, religiously pounding the pavement every morning. And yet they are unable to handle the up and down of 4" curbs. Oh, the horrors, the egregious unfair demands to actually raise their feet just slightly and get slightly more exercise.
2. They don't like having to stop at the sidestreets for other people. Their logic is that if they are running in the street, they have the right of way and people have to stop for them, but if they are running on the sidewalk, they have to stop for others. This of course is completely incorrrect from a legal perspective. Not only are they still supposed to stop, but they are committing a crime by running on the street in lieu of the sidewalk, so they are doubly wrong.
Congratulations, those who are running and walking in the streets have proven they are even more self-absorbed, egotistical, stupid and lazy than I thought before. After hearing the explanations of why these people are acting this way, my opinion of them is even lower than it was to begin with.
To all you people that refuse to use the perfectly good sidewalks and prefer to walk in the street where there are cars, WHY?! Why won't you use the sidewalks? The city spends a lot of money to give you a safe place to walk where you won't endanger yourself, where you won't endanger other people, where you won't cause traffic problems. What the hell is your problem?!
Really, please, someone explain this behavior to me. It seems completely nonsensical to me, very self-absorbed, self-centered, outright intentionally rude and inconsiderate, and rather stupid from a personal safety standpoint. Are you performing an experiment to see if people will really run you over? Are you trying to prove you are more important than anyone else trying to drive down the street where they actually have the right to do by doing something you don't have a good reason to do?
I could understand this behavior if the sidewalk was blocked, or was in such bad shape that it couldn't be walked on easily, or if it was too crowded to handle all the traffic. But tell me why people still do this when the sidewalk is perfectly good and no one else is using it.
What is so appealing about the road, where multi-ton vehicles are traveling, that make you people ignore the sidewalks where you are supposed to be walking? Why do we waste our money providing you with things that you ignore in favor of creating hazardous conditions for yourself and the people around you?
Do you have an answer? Are you just crazy? If you have a good, valid reason, I will gladly apologize, but right now, you people just seem crazy to me.
ADDENDUM: Someone gave me a couple of reasons for why they choose to walk in the street rather than the sidewalk, thank you. so I thought I'd share their reasons.
1. They don't like the up and down of going over the curbs at the side streets. This reason was given by some joggers. I thought I'd mention that because they are out there jogging on the streets for exercise, religiously pounding the pavement every morning. And yet they are unable to handle the up and down of 4" curbs. Oh, the horrors, the egregious unfair demands to actually raise their feet just slightly and get slightly more exercise.
2. They don't like having to stop at the sidestreets for other people. Their logic is that if they are running in the street, they have the right of way and people have to stop for them, but if they are running on the sidewalk, they have to stop for others. This of course is completely incorrrect from a legal perspective. Not only are they still supposed to stop, but they are committing a crime by running on the street in lieu of the sidewalk, so they are doubly wrong.
Congratulations, those who are running and walking in the streets have proven they are even more self-absorbed, egotistical, stupid and lazy than I thought before. After hearing the explanations of why these people are acting this way, my opinion of them is even lower than it was to begin with.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Seeing is NOT Believing
Everyone's heard of the phrase, "seeing is believing." Really? Are you sure?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100714/sc_livescience/languagecanmaketheinvisiblevisible
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080602-foresee-future.html
http://michaelbach.de/ot/index.html (a great catalog of visual illusions)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100609083219.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091006134823.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100114143027.htm
http://www.ted.com/talks/beau_lotto_optical_illusions_show_how_we_see.html
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/amos/visualillusion.html
http://www.squidoo.com/optical-illusion-videos
http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/personnel/hoffman/illusions.html
http://www.dailyillusions.com/
And of course, no list of how screwed up our perceptions are without a mention of the truly incredible Derren Brown: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown
If you haven't heard of Derren Brown, you should really, really, really watch some of his shows.
I could go on and on and on and…, but at some point it becomes ridiculous. Eye witnesses are not accepted in courts without corroborating evidence because they are so unreliable. Photographs have been faked since the camera was invented. To boot, this only talks about visual tricks that show just how unreliable what we see really is. I didn't even go into all the ways that our religious, political, social, racial and other types of biases affect how we see the world, nor did I list any of the numerous ways our other senses lie to us on a regular basis, nor how our mood changes our perception, etc.
Can we please kill the "seeing is believing" crap? What we see is NOT what is actually going on. You can't trust your own senses. This is why scientists do not consider unsubstantiated observations as having any merit whatsoever. You can't trust your own eyes. If you could, magicians wouldn't exist. So just stop it.
I have to restrain myself mightily every time I hear someone utter this ridiculous fallacy. Humans are so easily manipulated it is seriously beyond belief. If you don't think you are, you really haven't been paying attention. No, I don't exclude myself from this, but at least I know this happens and can at least try to keep it in mind so I can cut down the number of times I am tricked, misled, deceived, or just led astray. But if you don't accept the possibility that the world is not what you think you see, you are an open target to every con man, politician, and marketer that comes your way and you will continue to believe you actually have any control over your life and thoughts when you are simply a tool for someone else.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Bureacracy Run Amok
I recently devised a very simple educational study I wanted to do at work. It involved nothing more than giving a class of students some educational study aids, asking them what they thought of it, and seeing how it affected their scores on their tests. It was all completely voluntary, no one was being forced to use the material. The whole time I really needed to spend on the study would be less than a day at work. Sound simple, right?
Before I am allowed to do the study, I had to get it approved by the Institutional Review Board because I was dealing with live human subjects. We wouldn't want anyone to be hurt by the study after all. This is a reasonable requirement for studies that, you know, could actually maybe hurt someone. So ok, I decide to go through the process.
Step one: ask the IRB if I need to have a formal review done. I fill out several pages of forms, which they then decide that I do need a review. Turns out that all the forms were unnecessary as they only thing they care about is if the study deals with people. Why they couldn't just ask that one question or even just put it on their website saying that, I have no idea. But no, I have to fill out a lot of paperwork to get that answer.
Step two: I am told that before I can even submit the proposal, I have to take a course on protecting patient health information. Even though I am not dealing with patients or health information, since the school has a hospital attached, everyone has to have this course. Then I have to take another course on treatment of human subjects in research studies to make sure that I am not mistreating anyone during the study. Ok, for a lot of medical studies this is important. My study? Not so much.
Step three: In the course, I am told that Federal regulations allow educational studies like this to be exempt from review. Makes sense as it involves research on teaching techniques that can't harm anyone and uses no personal information that might be used to harm anyone. Doesn't matter says the IRB. They demand to review everything. So I have to have a pointless review to determine that I need to have my proposal reviewed, during the course of which I am told that it doesn't need to be reviewed, but yes it does? Hello?
Step four: Because my school is attached to a hospital, it has to be reviewed by a clinical studies review board before it can be reviewed. But my study doesn't have anything to do with clinical research, I say. Doesn't matter they say, any research that takes place on campus has to go through them.
Step five: Now I have to get the proposal through their computer system. I fill out several online forms for them. Problem is that the forms are designed through FileMaker Pro, which despite the marketing spiel, was never designed for online use with multiple, simultaneous users and causes it to be buggy as hell. I finally get everything through, with the biggest problem being that the system completely fails if when you submit a revision of your study, you actually call it a revision. But finally, they conclude after much back and forth that my study has no clinical relevance and can be submitted to the IRB for review.
Step six: I can now finally actually submit my proposal to the IRB for review, yay! The IRB has an online form with eleven pages of questions, wherein I have to submit more documents. Several of the questions are highly repetitive. For example, I have to submit a document containing the full proposal, an abstract of the proposal, a lay abstract of the proposal, a scientific abstract of the proposal, and then detailed sections in multiple parts of each part of the proposal that I had to submit as a separate document. Does this sound just a tad bit redundant to you?
Step seven: Because the system is based on FileMaker Pro, the IT guys are not the brightest IT guys ever, and because no one really thought about the set up, it loses my data after it has been successfully submitted and I have to go back to the clinical studies review and have them reapprove my study so I can resubmit to the IRB.
Finally, everything is done and the project is now in review. The original proposal? It was highly detailed, got high marks as a well written and thorough proposal from the clinical review people. It was less than 3 pages, including the survey I planned on giving the students. All the paperwork involved? More than twenty pages and almost a month of time to get through the system for a project that will take less than a day.
I asked one of the administrators why the system was set up the way it was, considering that they have options in the forms that crash the system if they are used. They said they had just copied the system from somewhere else and they probably had a use for it. I wonder if I asked those people if they had simply copied over the system from somewhere else, what would they say?
There are plenty of studies that would require all these hoops. Some studies pose serious potential threats to the test subjects if the researchers are not exactingly careful. My study on the other hand could easily have been reviewed by five minutes on the phone with one of the staff. But no, I have to spend a huge amount of time jumping through bureaucratic hoops.
This is a great example of bureaucracy run amok. Everyone involved agree that the system is terrible. Yet no one is willing to try to fix it. This whole system is set up the way it is because no one who set it up bothered to really think through what they needed. They simply took something designed by someone else for their own particular needs and then tacked on things piecemeal to handle their specific requirements, creating a system that is a headache for everyone involved. The key goal it seems is to protect human subjects by making it so onerous to actually do anything that researchers give up and work on something else. Is this any way to advance human knowledge? I understand making sure the work is done safely, but a little thought can make this process much easier and far less costly. We are spending so much time and money on pointless paperwork that we are not getting work done. Is this really what we want as a society? We are creating excessive obstructions for no other purpose than to give people jobs and to obstruct actual progress in anything important and we are doing it because people are not thinking through what actually needs to be done.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Silly Spindoctors
I received a mailing from Qualchoice today. I found it patently ridiculous. I wonder if you do too.
"In mid-May Qualchoice announced that it will take steps to prevent a gap in coverage that could leave many young Arkansans uninsured as a result of provisions in the new health reform law."
Sounds like the new health reform law is mandating reduced coverage for young Arkansans and that Qualchoice, through the goodness of their generous hearts, are going to stop this terrible thing, right? But let's continue, shall we?
"We'll be extending health coverage to individuals who would historically no longer be eligible as dependents because of college graduation or age."
Sounds like Qualchoice is pretty great, right?
"Under the the new health reform law, the age for a child to stay on their parents' employer-offered or individual health plan is extended to age 26 for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010."
Wait, what? So the law actually requires coverage to be extended? So how precisely is Qualchoice helping here? Let's continue.
"Beginning June 1, 2010, Qualchoicewill work with its customers to eliminate the coverage gap young Arkansans may face before this health care reform provision takes place."
So basically, Qualchoice is NOT covering them right now, but the new law requires them to do so starting in September, so they are going to cover them a few months before the law requires them to do it and this is them covering a supposed gap created by the health reform? This is a blatant lie. The only gap in coverage is what they are already doing and the new health reform is whatis closing this gap, not Qualchoice. Who are they trying to kid?
"Qualchoice presidentand CEO, Mike Stock, said, 'It has always been our goal to provide Arkansans with access to affordable, quality health care. We want college graduates and other dependents to be able to concentrate on finding employment in this competitive environment and not worry that they'll lose their existing coverage."
Give me a break, Mike. If you were really serious, you would ALREADY be giving them the coverage. The new health reform you are disparaging is what is making you provide this coverage. You aren't doing it because you want to. You are trying to make us believe that the health reform is a bad thing and you are saving us from its bad reforms, but it is clear who the real villian here is, and it is not the health reform. It is the lying insurance industry. It's really hard to defend against your own words. Do you really think we are that dumb? Obviously, you do,which makes what you are doing even worse.
"In mid-May Qualchoice announced that it will take steps to prevent a gap in coverage that could leave many young Arkansans uninsured as a result of provisions in the new health reform law."
Sounds like the new health reform law is mandating reduced coverage for young Arkansans and that Qualchoice, through the goodness of their generous hearts, are going to stop this terrible thing, right? But let's continue, shall we?
"We'll be extending health coverage to individuals who would historically no longer be eligible as dependents because of college graduation or age."
Sounds like Qualchoice is pretty great, right?
"Under the the new health reform law, the age for a child to stay on their parents' employer-offered or individual health plan is extended to age 26 for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010."
Wait, what? So the law actually requires coverage to be extended? So how precisely is Qualchoice helping here? Let's continue.
"Beginning June 1, 2010, Qualchoicewill work with its customers to eliminate the coverage gap young Arkansans may face before this health care reform provision takes place."
So basically, Qualchoice is NOT covering them right now, but the new law requires them to do so starting in September, so they are going to cover them a few months before the law requires them to do it and this is them covering a supposed gap created by the health reform? This is a blatant lie. The only gap in coverage is what they are already doing and the new health reform is whatis closing this gap, not Qualchoice. Who are they trying to kid?
"Qualchoice presidentand CEO, Mike Stock, said, 'It has always been our goal to provide Arkansans with access to affordable, quality health care. We want college graduates and other dependents to be able to concentrate on finding employment in this competitive environment and not worry that they'll lose their existing coverage."
Give me a break, Mike. If you were really serious, you would ALREADY be giving them the coverage. The new health reform you are disparaging is what is making you provide this coverage. You aren't doing it because you want to. You are trying to make us believe that the health reform is a bad thing and you are saving us from its bad reforms, but it is clear who the real villian here is, and it is not the health reform. It is the lying insurance industry. It's really hard to defend against your own words. Do you really think we are that dumb? Obviously, you do,which makes what you are doing even worse.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Teaching methods
It is a common belief that if one changes the way one teaches, it equates to watering down the course. Many college professors will say they have too much material to cover to not do traditional lectures. Many secondary school teachers will say the same thing. This, however, is a logical fallacy, a mistake in critical thinking.
What you teach and how you teach it are two very different discussions and should never under any circumstances be done at the same time, because if you do, you quickly run into huge misunderstandings, confusion, and a general failure of education. The obvious thing to do is to decide what the students should be learning first, come up with clear ideas of what they should be getting out of the class. This will in turn inform exactly what material should be covered, what details to bring up, that will best accomplish those goals. If you are trying to teach someone about computers, you really don't need to discuss the physics of electricity. While using a computer does require electricity, it will not help a person operate a computer. Once you have that, then and only then should you really decide the best way to teach the material.
Unfortunately, most people start off with the idea that they need to prepare a lecture on a given topic. Then they decide all the interesting facts they want to include. If the students are lucky, the professor will then pare it down to what they can actually say in class. this is more of a problem than they realize.
The problem here is two-fold. One, practically every other teaching method takes more time than traditional lecture. On the plus side, practically every other teaching method works better. Lectures are about the most inefficient way to teach ever invented. But it is also the easiest, thus the most common. What few lecturers seem to appreciate is that their lectures are pointless if the students aren't learning. The lecture is mostly about telling the students what they need to learn, because they are unlikely to actually learn anything listening to the lecture.
The second problem is that many professors have decided that their students are too lazy to read and do outside work and so they have to cover everything in class. While it may be true that most students are lazy and unwilling to work outside of class, it is only because they have been taught that way, that it is acceptable and sufficient to pass. Students are are expected to work hard will do so. Admittedly, if you take a bunch of students who are used to being spoon-fed, most will fail at first. However, if you keep up the requirements, even they will begin to turn around. Given time, most people rise to the expectations.
So, if you have to cover everything in class and lecture is the only way to cover the amount of material fast enough, you will never try anything else. Course, this means that your students are being shortchanged, because they deserve teachers that are interested in teaching. Why don't they get it at most universities? Because for the most part, the professors aren't allowed to. To keep their jobs, they need to bring in grant money. Teaching quality is low down on the list for administrators, who only see the bottom line in terms of money. Teaching doesn't bring the school money, it costs money. Grans on the other hand do bring the school money. So even professors that would like to do better wind up not having the time to spend on improving their teaching.
Ok, that was a bit of a digression, back to the topic at hand. I find it odd that most science classes I've seen work under the above principles, yet most english and poly sci classes I've seen require the students to do a lot of outside reading and are expected to be familiar with the material whether or not it is mentioned in class. Shouldn't science classes expect as much from their students as these courses? Course, most people speak english (at least where I am) and most people have some idea of politics, whereas a lot of people are completely illiterate when it comes to science. Nevertheless, people should be expected to read.
Lectures are unlikely ever to go away completely and I am not proposing that. However, lectures should be more than just one person talking at a group of people. The students should be expected to cover the material outside of class and pointed to resources that will cover the basics. The lectures could then be used to tie major concepts together and put all the information into context, and to answer questions regarding the material. The students can learn the basic memory stuff on their own. Where they need help is the higher level abstract, conceptual training. If lectures were designed this way, they would be more effective training tools as well as allowing more material to be covered.
This would not only create better educated students, but it would actually give the students their money's worth, which is what they aren't usually getting. The students who just want a grade (which is most of them) are shortchanging themselves and the people who helped pay for their education. It is the job of the educators not to let them do so. If the students want to hurt themselves, that is on their heads, but some people want that education and they should not be hampered by the faults of others. This can actually happen if we discuss education in a meaningful way, rather than the typical waste of time trying to lump the material and the teaching method into the same conversation.
What you teach and how you teach it are two very different discussions and should never under any circumstances be done at the same time, because if you do, you quickly run into huge misunderstandings, confusion, and a general failure of education. The obvious thing to do is to decide what the students should be learning first, come up with clear ideas of what they should be getting out of the class. This will in turn inform exactly what material should be covered, what details to bring up, that will best accomplish those goals. If you are trying to teach someone about computers, you really don't need to discuss the physics of electricity. While using a computer does require electricity, it will not help a person operate a computer. Once you have that, then and only then should you really decide the best way to teach the material.
Unfortunately, most people start off with the idea that they need to prepare a lecture on a given topic. Then they decide all the interesting facts they want to include. If the students are lucky, the professor will then pare it down to what they can actually say in class. this is more of a problem than they realize.
The problem here is two-fold. One, practically every other teaching method takes more time than traditional lecture. On the plus side, practically every other teaching method works better. Lectures are about the most inefficient way to teach ever invented. But it is also the easiest, thus the most common. What few lecturers seem to appreciate is that their lectures are pointless if the students aren't learning. The lecture is mostly about telling the students what they need to learn, because they are unlikely to actually learn anything listening to the lecture.
The second problem is that many professors have decided that their students are too lazy to read and do outside work and so they have to cover everything in class. While it may be true that most students are lazy and unwilling to work outside of class, it is only because they have been taught that way, that it is acceptable and sufficient to pass. Students are are expected to work hard will do so. Admittedly, if you take a bunch of students who are used to being spoon-fed, most will fail at first. However, if you keep up the requirements, even they will begin to turn around. Given time, most people rise to the expectations.
So, if you have to cover everything in class and lecture is the only way to cover the amount of material fast enough, you will never try anything else. Course, this means that your students are being shortchanged, because they deserve teachers that are interested in teaching. Why don't they get it at most universities? Because for the most part, the professors aren't allowed to. To keep their jobs, they need to bring in grant money. Teaching quality is low down on the list for administrators, who only see the bottom line in terms of money. Teaching doesn't bring the school money, it costs money. Grans on the other hand do bring the school money. So even professors that would like to do better wind up not having the time to spend on improving their teaching.
Ok, that was a bit of a digression, back to the topic at hand. I find it odd that most science classes I've seen work under the above principles, yet most english and poly sci classes I've seen require the students to do a lot of outside reading and are expected to be familiar with the material whether or not it is mentioned in class. Shouldn't science classes expect as much from their students as these courses? Course, most people speak english (at least where I am) and most people have some idea of politics, whereas a lot of people are completely illiterate when it comes to science. Nevertheless, people should be expected to read.
Lectures are unlikely ever to go away completely and I am not proposing that. However, lectures should be more than just one person talking at a group of people. The students should be expected to cover the material outside of class and pointed to resources that will cover the basics. The lectures could then be used to tie major concepts together and put all the information into context, and to answer questions regarding the material. The students can learn the basic memory stuff on their own. Where they need help is the higher level abstract, conceptual training. If lectures were designed this way, they would be more effective training tools as well as allowing more material to be covered.
This would not only create better educated students, but it would actually give the students their money's worth, which is what they aren't usually getting. The students who just want a grade (which is most of them) are shortchanging themselves and the people who helped pay for their education. It is the job of the educators not to let them do so. If the students want to hurt themselves, that is on their heads, but some people want that education and they should not be hampered by the faults of others. This can actually happen if we discuss education in a meaningful way, rather than the typical waste of time trying to lump the material and the teaching method into the same conversation.
Friday, July 2, 2010
The Gulf Oil Spill: We are ALL Responsible
I think I will start off this blog by commenting on something that is being discussed worldwide: the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Everyone seems to be screaming for the heads of BP on stakes. A lot of people are blaming Obama as if he personally swam down to the well and blew it up. This seems to me rather ridiculous.
Who really is responsible? We could blame Halliburton. After all, they are the ones that built the equipment that failed and the cementing around the well head, according to the LATimes and the Wall Street Journal, among others. As a result, they would seem to be the primary people at fault. Halliburton does not have the best reputation for honest business practices and have been accused of misappropriating and submitting phony charges to the tune of more than a a half billion dollars for their highly criticized work in Iraq. It seems to me they should be ponying up several billion to clean up the Gulf. And yet, the American people are not screaming for the heads of Cheney and the current CEO of Halliburton on pikes, or even asking them to consider paying anything.
But we can't just blame them. We should also blame Transocean Ltd. They are another American company that was actually in charge of operating the rig for BP. It was their people that were not following regulations and were not monitoring the the well like they were supposed to be doing. If they had followed regulations or were even paying attention, this could have been prevented. People's attention slips, accidents happen, that's human nature and not evil maliciousness, or even beyond normal work situations. Nevertheless, they are culpable for their mistakes. Yet I don't hear the American people screaming for them to go bankrupt to pay for the cleanup.
We could also blame the US government. It was the US regulators that turned their backs on their duty and let the oil companies get away with flagrantly disregarding the rules which led to this debacle. Robert Bea, an expert in system failures, recently gave an interview to Science News, in which he saidabout the government, "they're the parents in the family. Industry are the children. Here the children told the parents what to do." One could blame Obama, but those regulators were put in place by Bush and Cheney. Obama has some blame for not having them replaced, but there is only so much one can expect one person to handle. But we can't really just blame the Bush/Cheney administration. They were responsible for essentially removing the reins on the oil companies. But they didn't do it by themselves. The process was already well unerway during the Clinton years.
It should be noted that Presidents don't write laws. During all this time, the republican party controlled Congress. They hold a great deal of responsibility for this as well. Yet no one is screaming for them to pay up. The Democratic congress has had the opportunity to fix these problems, but they have been just as complicit by doing nothing.
People are also pretending like this is the only oil rig to have this problem. People only care now because it happened where Americans and Europeans like to go play tourist, because Americans are noticeably losing income, because oil and dead animals are washing up on American beaches. No one seems to know about or care about a leak in Australia that is just as bad. No one seems to care about the Nigerian spill which has been going on for much longer and is much worse. There have been dozens of major oil spills that have gone without complaint by the American public. Infoplease.com has a nice listing of major oil disasters since 1967. These are not all, just the major ones. And yet no one has been screaming about these spills. We still have people saying we shouldn't blow this one spill out of proportion, that we should continue drilling like everything is fine.
The Deepwater Horizon Gulf spill should never have happened. Not because one company screwed up, not because a regulator turned a blind eye to shady business practices, but because we as a nation turned our back on what was going on and let it happen. The evidence was out there for anyone to see. The oil companies have been playing fast and loose with the regulations for decades and we let them because we wanted cheap gas.
This is all of our faults. Time to pony up, the bill is coming due.
UPDATE: Seems the leaks in the Gulf are much more numerous than the public knew. Yahoo News reports that more than half of the 50,000 oil wells in the Gulf have been abandoned and there is no oversight to see if they were sealed correctly and if they are leaking. It turns out that yes indeed, a lot of them are leaking. But since no one is monitoring these wells, no one has any idea just how bad the problem is. All we know is that it's a lot worse than we have been told. So, do we just sit back and do nothing about it like usual, or do we do something about it?
Who really is responsible? We could blame Halliburton. After all, they are the ones that built the equipment that failed and the cementing around the well head, according to the LATimes and the Wall Street Journal, among others. As a result, they would seem to be the primary people at fault. Halliburton does not have the best reputation for honest business practices and have been accused of misappropriating and submitting phony charges to the tune of more than a a half billion dollars for their highly criticized work in Iraq. It seems to me they should be ponying up several billion to clean up the Gulf. And yet, the American people are not screaming for the heads of Cheney and the current CEO of Halliburton on pikes, or even asking them to consider paying anything.
But we can't just blame them. We should also blame Transocean Ltd. They are another American company that was actually in charge of operating the rig for BP. It was their people that were not following regulations and were not monitoring the the well like they were supposed to be doing. If they had followed regulations or were even paying attention, this could have been prevented. People's attention slips, accidents happen, that's human nature and not evil maliciousness, or even beyond normal work situations. Nevertheless, they are culpable for their mistakes. Yet I don't hear the American people screaming for them to go bankrupt to pay for the cleanup.
We could also blame the US government. It was the US regulators that turned their backs on their duty and let the oil companies get away with flagrantly disregarding the rules which led to this debacle. Robert Bea, an expert in system failures, recently gave an interview to Science News, in which he saidabout the government, "they're the parents in the family. Industry are the children. Here the children told the parents what to do." One could blame Obama, but those regulators were put in place by Bush and Cheney. Obama has some blame for not having them replaced, but there is only so much one can expect one person to handle. But we can't really just blame the Bush/Cheney administration. They were responsible for essentially removing the reins on the oil companies. But they didn't do it by themselves. The process was already well unerway during the Clinton years.
It should be noted that Presidents don't write laws. During all this time, the republican party controlled Congress. They hold a great deal of responsibility for this as well. Yet no one is screaming for them to pay up. The Democratic congress has had the opportunity to fix these problems, but they have been just as complicit by doing nothing.
People are also pretending like this is the only oil rig to have this problem. People only care now because it happened where Americans and Europeans like to go play tourist, because Americans are noticeably losing income, because oil and dead animals are washing up on American beaches. No one seems to know about or care about a leak in Australia that is just as bad. No one seems to care about the Nigerian spill which has been going on for much longer and is much worse. There have been dozens of major oil spills that have gone without complaint by the American public. Infoplease.com has a nice listing of major oil disasters since 1967. These are not all, just the major ones. And yet no one has been screaming about these spills. We still have people saying we shouldn't blow this one spill out of proportion, that we should continue drilling like everything is fine.
The Deepwater Horizon Gulf spill should never have happened. Not because one company screwed up, not because a regulator turned a blind eye to shady business practices, but because we as a nation turned our back on what was going on and let it happen. The evidence was out there for anyone to see. The oil companies have been playing fast and loose with the regulations for decades and we let them because we wanted cheap gas.
This is all of our faults. Time to pony up, the bill is coming due.
UPDATE: Seems the leaks in the Gulf are much more numerous than the public knew. Yahoo News reports that more than half of the 50,000 oil wells in the Gulf have been abandoned and there is no oversight to see if they were sealed correctly and if they are leaking. It turns out that yes indeed, a lot of them are leaking. But since no one is monitoring these wells, no one has any idea just how bad the problem is. All we know is that it's a lot worse than we have been told. So, do we just sit back and do nothing about it like usual, or do we do something about it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)