Yahoo360
Yahoo! 360° - RANTYahoo! 360° - RANT
There is a schism between our idea civilization and our roots in the evolutionary process. Reconciling the two is impossible.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
People are byproducts of the evolutionary process. Why is it so surprising when we act like animals?
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Creativity is a defect of the human mind – connecting unrelated subjects to form something non-existent. You can achieve success in this world if your brain puts two and two together and comes up with a clown riding a bicycle.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Many of our most famous personalities have achieved a significant amount of their notoriety through disreputable behavior. We set forth to follow our principles, but often admire those who so callously disregard them.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Evolution shaped our emotional responses and instincts -- intellect shapes our ideal behaviors. Relying on your gut feelings does not always produce the most civilized response.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
The instinct for self-preservation is the driving evolutionary force behind self-centered behavior. You are achieving a higher degree of civilization when your concerns include not just yourself, but also those around you.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Human intelligence is still only a small percentage of actual intelligence. Your life depends on the ongoing race between how fast we learn and how quickly we destroy.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
The true measure of a person is in their actions – of a company is in its reactions. Your employer is not acting in your best interest, no matter how hard they try to convince you otherwise.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Computer software has such great potential, yet most often delivers such great disappointment. The moment you rely on any of these modern tools, you quickly learn how fragile they truly are.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Wherever we are in this world, many of us feel pride in our fortune to live in a highly civilized society. However, we need to clearly understand how to measure our society's progress and failures so that we are not only pretending to be enlighten, we truly are. Our evolutionary past defines the primal urges that we move towards instinctually. Our intellect sets forth ideas that directly conflict with our evolution but they do represent a higher degree of civilized behaviour to which we aspire. Idealistically our intellect has allowed us to create higher order concepts, such as honour, trust, loyalty and decency that reflect a nobler viewpoint of living. These ideals stand in sharp contrast to our built-in instincts – perhaps that is why when presented with examples, we are so awed by people with the ability to rise above their own nature.
This duality leads us into all sorts of trouble, as we are bound by our past to behave in a certain manner, but our own intellect pushes us to strive for a greater more civilized existence. We can measure our behaviour by taking into account both the ideas espoused by our society but also our ability to really live up to them. Collectively we must measure the society by what the bulk of the population achieves, there will always be individuals that raise or lower the organization by a notch or two. When we set forth ideas that lead to the betterment of the majority of people, we do so out of our need to hold the society together. To continue society must provide at least some value above and beyond the abilities of individuals. Thus, the more noble principles revolve around actions that are usually less self-centred. Selfishness is related to our instinct for self-preservation, one of our many evolutionary traits. Being more civilized is then oriented in the same direction of being less selfish. As individuals are willing to give up aspects for the good of the rest of society, they achieve a more civilized existence.
Caution must be used in this type of analysis, since it might accidentally lead someone to assume that some ideas such as communism are more civilized than ideas like capitalism. On the surface, there could be trouble with comparing the idealistic nature of the two different sets of rules. One sets a desire for equality, while the other rewards those who push the bounds. From that individual perspective there is a clear winner, but if the same logic is inverted one set of rules heavily limits the individual to the capabilities of their peers, where the other provides nearly limitless rewards and options. Not arbitrarily constraining members of a society is important in allowing them to achieve their maximum abilities and reaping the rewards for such. While it does seem inherently selfish, it offers the possibly for success, which gives each individual the most freedoms. A society that actively promotes its members to excel to their maximum capacity must be more civilized than one that arbitrarily holds them back. The collective group cannot overshadow the individual, or vice versa. A balance must exist so that each can prosper.
Within a reasonably civilized society, we can bring down the level of civilization quickly by institutionalizing our own base natures. Evolution focuses on reacting, while intellect pushes us to understand first. From this we tell ourselves that we should not judge a book by its cover. As noble as an idea like that is, it is so easy for us to cave into our own fears and hype and quickly abandon this type of idea. A simple example is the province of Ontario’s implementation of a law that condemns all pit bulls as being dangerous. Reacting to a large number of newspaper articles on various dog attacks, few of which were pit bulls, the law bans that unlucky breed of domesticated dog from being brought into Ontario. It does so based on no known facts and mounting evidence that this technique has failed to work whenever else it has been applied. The media found that pit bulls sounded deadly and dangerous, articles on which helped to catch peoples attention and sell newspapers. Those newly in power found it easy to quickly discard their principles in an attempt to easily placate the general population with quick legislative action and look like they were being proactive. This may fool the general public for a while, but the type of discontent that this type of legislative abuse fosters will ultimately harm those responsible. Obviously, it brings down the level of civilization as the society puts forth one set of lofty ideas, but then cannot live up to them.
Even when it’s not at the organizational level, we can still find our ideas being quickly dropped in favour of expediency. In any city that has seen a massive increase in automobiles, they have no doubt encounter the same types of transportation problems as Toronto. With more cars on the road, the drivers grow more frustrated and less polite. Rude, mean and selfish behaviour becomes the norm as more and more people justify their decent into being rude because other people do it. Collectively, the aggressive and rude driving style of a few becomes codified into the society as more and more people justify their own bad behaviours. It is a vicious circle, with each new round producing only more bad drivers and more traffic congestion. Oddly enough, bad driving itself helps to reduce the effectiveness of the roadways for all, even if it might save a couple of minutes for one driver. While there were always a few individuals with excessively bad driving behaviour, the whole of civilization descends a notch or two as more and more people justify this to be acceptable. Road rage and primitive aggressive angry behaviour when practiced by everyone should never be considered civilized.
Our own selfish desires to consume push the need to lower the prices of the items we buy, so we can buy more. In turn, the manufacturers get less quality and the items become more disposable, meaning we must replace them more often. We want this constant change, so the quality of the things in our lives is affected. To accelerate the change, we go to bulk consumer stores to save small percentages off the items we buy, but we still pick things of low quality and we reward the manufactures for producing low quality and selling it to these discount stores so we can buy more of this stuff and store it in the basement of our houses. Like some early cultures, we seem to be able to give up an awful lot just for a handful of beads. Our own selfish desire to purchase more beads, more often fuels our industrial needs to create more cheap stuff faster and for a lower price. Commerce may seem good for a society until you realize that we are surrounded by ever growing amounts of defective junk that simply complicate our lives and require constant replacing. As we build more on this fragile house of cards, we force ourselves to focus more on our possessions and less on our principles. Feeding our new material addiction forms the justification for such issues as the destruction of the surrounding environment.
If you peer deeply into your society, looking for acceptable acts of selfishness in individuals it is surprising how many of them you can find. If you look for acts of selflessness, our forefathers may have established some strong principles of behaviour, but in practice, we have so few examples of truly noble acts. We talk about and pride ourselves in being civilized, but in truth, overall collectively we don’t even come close to living up to the ideas that we push on our children. For some places in the world, their descent from being civilized is more obvious, but in all cases, it is generally based around the actions of the individuals. To be more civilized we must understand what this really means and only then can we start to influence the world around us to try to reach a higher level. We may be products of evolution, but our intellect provides us the means by which we can escape the bounds of our past.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Should you really believe that a financial institution is your friend, or that a politician has your best interests at heart? Will whiter teeth help with that promotion or does owning a bigger car really prove you are successful? Does a government act for the benefit of humanity or will an oil company change the world? We are bombarded by false messages backed up by questionable testimonies and doctored statistics. We are bombarded by entertainment knowledge, trivial facts, frequently incorrect -- pushed on us for the purpose of entertainment or marketing. We are bombarded by the false wisdom of the ages, pushed out by experts trying to sells books, products and even themselves.
We live in the age of misinformation were we are surrounded by facts, myths, urban legends, advice, propaganda, opinions, research and any other type of information that helps support someone somewhere with the desire to control us or sell us something. When information became a commodity, we all lost out on its true value. When there is so much false information, how can one ever distinguish the truth? We live in the misinformation age, where we may know the answer, but we may never know if it is correct….
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
We are driven to find answers. Our very existence is unstable without them. In this eternal quest we are drawn to sources that purport to provide us with the answers for our purpose in life and how we should live out the remainder of our days. In this we are extremely vulnerable, and history has shown again and again how easy it is to manipulate a large number of people by way of their spirituality.
From an evolutionary point of view, life is about procreation and the survival of the species. In that sense, we are but one step on a long pathway to some greater organism. From an idealistic point of view, life is our only shot at existence, so we need to maximize our very limited time. Ideally, while maximizing it, we should try not to forget that there are other people around us, and so hopefully find a more civilized level of interaction. The next evolutionary step likely depends on our ability to rise above our own self-absorption and interact with the world around us at a much higher level. Intelligence may have given us a leg up, but unless we can leverage it to achieve a better over-all behavior, it is not enough to save us from our own undoing. Intelligence is as deadly as it is liberating.
Life, then has two very different meanings – one coming from where we originated – the other coming from were we would like to be headed. Any set of answers that is not based around this inherent duality provides an incomplete picture of our world. We must accept our past origins, but also move forward towards a more enlightened future. Much of our sorrow and strife is self-inflicted and as such is not necessary for us to continue.Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Cheap products fuel our disposable wants and needs – quality has become secondary and optional. You get what you pay for, and they only give you want you want.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Emotion is the key ingredient that elevates craft into art. When we are truly moved by our feelings, that impact stays with us for a long time.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
A bureaucratic entanglement only ever grows larger – making new rules is easy. We fear making mistakes, admitting mistakes and most of all, cleaning up mistakes.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Real facts are indisputable,
but these days
they can still easily
be spun out
of existence.
If you think you've been fooled – again – your probably right.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
In established democracies, this leads to many disappointing placements of politicians – a frequent result until the vast bulk of the society has been affected enough in order for them to get informed and make a better choice. In struggling economies, particularly where the education level is significantly less for the voting masses, the results are a significant increase in instability and corruption. Actors and sport stars may have noticeable charisma, and on occasion some may actually be great leaders, however they should only be voted into government with great care and knowledge of who they really are.
This is not an argument to limit the right to vote. Democracies depend on all people having the right to exercise their vote at any time – a principle that is important in making the citizens feel empowered to control their own destiny. This is an argument to suggest that a) low voter turn out isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and b) there should be less pressure placed on people to feel obligated to vote. If a lot of people skipped the elections, most of the time, that might actually help to produce a more stable governing body.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Of course, when you think about it, the reasoning for it becomes obvious. If you are the CEO of a major company why would you deliberately choose an idea that would lead towards you loosing that job? You won’t, that would be crazy. Why would you choose an idea that would favor one of your henchlings with the ability to take over the company? Again, you wouldn’t, that would also be crazy. Depending on your confidence, the ideas that would most appeal to you are the ones that keep the status quo and thus protect your valuable position. What is true for the CEO is also true for all of the other managers all of the way down the chain. While at the top, your self-centered choices percolate down towards the masses and are the root cause for creating the environment in which all of the inefficiencies thrive and grow. A radical new idea to compress the management structure and make it more efficient for example could never get past those people in the company that would potentially lose their jobs because of it. Changing the direction of the company, as an idea is one that could only come in from outside pressure – internally most people would fear that type of shift immensely.
The same rules apply to any type of organization. If you are politician, does it make sense in the beginning of your career to embark upon a risky set of fiddling with the underlying structure or is it more reasonable to slap a few Band-Aids over the most visible wounds and than call it a major success. If you are a country do you really want those third world countries to be successful and then steal your mojo? The control structure protects itself, even if that enshrines its inefficiencies directly into the process.
We don’t fix things when there is no personal benefit to getting them fixed. Unless it has reached a crisis point, then there is no need to fix it. And if it has reached a crisis point, then it is too late to fix it properly. This is written in our DNA as human logic and in some way, shape or form it is the essence behind almost all human suffering. Our evolutionary roots bind us to the chaos and disorder that make up our daily existence. Perhaps the next evolutionary step will allow us to break free of our past limitations. For now, I’ll just try and ignore it…
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
An easy example is communism. Such a lofty goal: to each according to his need – this fails spectacularly because it does not compensate those who work harder. As such, it not only doesn’t inspire, but it actively demotivates people. It is a system that cannot work, because people need to feel special, they need to compete with each other, and they need to see that they can win it all. Capitalism is an ugly system, one that seems mean and cruel, yet it works because it allows those few to succeed. It gives people a reason to wake up in the morning and push it as hard as they can. The leaders may not be the idea cream of society, but for most of them they put in the effort. Even after success, there is always someone itching to take their place – to remain on top they need to maintain their effort. That drives us forward.
Continuously in the media, you see examples of people putting very idealistic systems into effect and then being “shocked” when they fail. We have this blind spot to our own nature and the general unfairness in the world -- that causes us to naively believe that people will only operate using their good qualities. Nope. Bad qualities abound, and are often precisely the ones necessary for success. Try climbing your way up the corporate latter if you are consumed with any empathy for your fellow employees. You need the ability to execute ruthless, but effective career enhancing maneuvers. That is the only way to break out of middle management. We all have an inherent instinctual drive for self-preservation – for some that means acquiring more money or power.
Trusting or requiring that humans will act on their best behavior is an easy way to construct a system guaranteed to fail. Any reasonable design must account for our darker behaviors as well as our good qualities. A well-balanced system understands that good doesn’t necessarily persevere over evil and that unless the system itself embodies some degree of fairness, it is unlikely that the players will act that way on their own. The system needs to assume that people will cheat, and that checks and balances must be enforced, and that if possible the real problems will always be ignored. Until such time that we really evolve, any system we put into effect that we would like to see become successful must accept the reality of our true nature, not our idealistic one. Someday that may change, but not in my lifetime.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Tis the season for madness, greed, anger, recklessness, fear, hatred and most of all selfishness. Where we once started out with an entire season of giving, honesty and good behavior, most people now spend the weeks leading up to Christmas stressed out, depressed and annoyed. They over-spend and over-eat. The spirit of the season has become a ghoul from our darker side. We endure weeks of pain and anguish, so that we can celebrate a few fleeting moments were we delude ourselves that our reluctant gift-giving will somehow make up for all of the negative actions that we have bestowed upon the world to get to this point. And until its over, do we really even enjoy it? And once its over, do we not pack up all of our gifts and store them in the basement with the piles of other gifts from Christmases of the past? Why did we let this season slide into such a horrible state?
Funny enough, no gifts, kind words, patience and a few acts of charity are probably all it would take to restore some of the luster to the holidays. It once was about friends and family, food and conversations, good words and deeds, and it can be about these things again someday. We just need to let the selfishness go, and remember that its all about other people, not ourselves. It about any other people, including family, friends and most especially in the modern big cities, strangers. A simple act of politeness or kindness is not a hard gift to give, whether its appreciated or not. We are what we do.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
We need a new branch of science dedicated towards studying organizational issues for different lifeforms. A bio-organizational approach that models the effects of particular organizational systems with respect to a specific lifeform. For instance, communism failed miserably for human beings, but might work for a simpler form such as insects. Dogs have their own inherent logic -- different from ours, which is different from mathematical logic -- this effects their structures and how they work. Humans have a large number of imperfections, which are often ignored when people are constructing systems for us. We need a way to simulate how systems will react with respect to specific lifeforms before we put them into practice.
The base of bio-organization modeling might be to construct a model independently of the sub entities contained within it. It could consist of a set of defining rules and a set of parameters that represent lifeform attributes. When processed with respect to a specific species, does the system collapse due to internal issues, external ones or is it stable? What characteristics from a species cause a system to become unstable? How fast will this occur (is there even a real very of stable)? As the model is crunched through a series of iterations, does the output remain constant, decrees or increase.
Mathematically, I think the rules would be some set of equations. Maybe inequalities, but discrete calculus would be easier (linear programming would be fun, but possibly more than enough complexity). As more rules were added, the results of iterating them would increase relative the number of rules. Some type of projection function would bring the results down to a single floating point number. For example, two rules at the first iteration might evaluate to 200.0, while 8 rules would evaluate to 800.0. Each different group would consistent of a large number of individual parameters, mostly single numbers. Parameters would need to be objective, but there could be some leeway, for example, emotion might be a parameter. Insects would have 0 emotion, while people might normally have 8, and a mob of irate people might have 10. More parameters would be better, and they would need to be enough of them to at least separate out all of the known organisms, probably a lot more because they would need to account for different situations and different sized groups.
Iterating the rules, with respect to a parameter set would produce a consistent number for each round. If the number was decreasing, the system would be failing because of internal difficulties. If the number is increasing, external factors are a problem. For any interesting set, the expectation would be that the numbers would bounce all over, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing. For this type of system, taking a limit as the iterations tend towards infinity would resolve the final destiny. Knowing the speed of progression towards the limit would be interesting too.
With this type of modeling, we could look at organizational systems, such as bureaucracies, and determine which rules and processes were causing imbalances within the system. New legislation could be simulated before time was wasted implementing it. We could understand the side effects of adding new rules quickly and easily.
It is based on an inherent assumption that the underlying behavior of any specific group is essentially deterministic, but then it seems to me from my life experience and reading way too many newspapers that the underlying behavior of any specific group is quite predicable. Certainly, there are patterns that play over and over again, endlessly, without people seemingly learning any valuable lessons from them. We should study and exploit these repeating patterns.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
A judge in Ontario has upheld a ban on the specific collection of dog breeds commonly known as "Pit Bulls". In this ruling Justice Thea Herman says that there is a "reasonable apprehension of harm" despite the fact that there was "inconclusive" evidence of danger. She also says that "dog ownership is not a right". While she did restrict the definition of "Pit Bull", she essentially ruled in favor of allowing a government to "manufacture cause" to justify removing our personal freedoms; putting the burden of proof unfairly onto the citizens. The original law was not based on fact. It was a reaction to newspapers that more often subscribe dog bites to "Pit Bulls" than other breeds, because that term is popular and helps to sell papers. Poodle bites just aren't news.
In this case, proving that any one subset of a domesticated species is consistently more dangerous than the other member is impossible. Most dogs are essentially mixed breeds, and poorly documented as such. The type of data needed for a proof of this magnitude is not easily captured. Most dog bites are unreported and when they are reported the breed information is rarely correct. Without real data, no honest scientist could ever commit to saying that one "type" of dog is more likely to bite than any other type. Even if they managed to get a small set of accurate numbers for a specific city for a couple of years, extrapolating those numbers to the millions of dogs currently in existence would be exceptionally questionable. This type of prejudiced distinction between any member of the same species can never proven with proper scientific reasoning and thus it can never be a proven fact. As the judge noted, it is inconclusive now and always will be.
Inconclusive evidence isn't nearly enough to justify taking away our rights. We have inherent rights and freedoms, many that existed long before we came together collectively and formed governments. The right to own a dog is absolutely one of them. Certainly historians could easily prove that man's symbiotic relationship with dogs predates our current social obligations. I'm sure my ancestors would have objected to joining any society at the expense of their rights to keep dogs. It has been there throughout history. It is why dogs are domesticated animals. If there has never been sufficient cause to take away those rights then we clearly still have them, particularly given that they predates our society by thousands of years. To own a dog is an inherent right that no reasonable government can just arbitrarily revoke; even if its not explicitly in a charter. And particularly if they have nothing but hearsay to back up their position.
We all lose when we allow our governments to go beyond their purpose. They exist to serve our needs, not to capitalize on our fears. I certainly realize that sense of morale responsibility that some people acquire when in their positions of apparent power, but we can so easily lose sight of that thin line that separates those helping us from those abusing us. Governments looking to exploit popular opinion are under pressure to be proactive, but it is sad when they turn a blind eye to the real problems that need solving and instead scan the newspapers for quick and easy hot-button topics. Humanity has enough problems that we don't need to let our governments manufacture artificial ones for us.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
BTW: I've moved my technical writings to a new blog: The Programmer's Paradox. It is directed towards software developers, but it might also be of interest to anyone who interacts with a computer frequently.
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
When you've got a moment: should I stay here or go to Blogger? What do you think?
Having trouble posting with 360? You can send me email at: paulwhomer@gmail.com
If you don't tell me, I am going to assume that your not real -- possibly just a spider or spam engine or something clicking on my page :-)
Yahoo! 360° - RANT
For now, if your looking for my next posts, you'll find them at: Irrational Focus
If you want to read any of my writings on Software Development try: The Programmer's Paradox
And, at some point I'll add my old posts in RANT as a PDF you can download in my Lulu store: Storefront
Still, if you've got a moment, a comment would be nice :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment