I am in a stigma and discrimination class this semester at Columbia University. In our class, one of the students discussed how women are objectified in America by men and subsequently stigmatized in society. Since the majority of my class is female, there was a lot of thoughts on the topic.
Most of the focus of the class was on how men are the source of objectification. Since we live in the remnants of a patriarchal society, it is natural to associate these attitudes towards women on the unequal power structure of which men continue to dominate. Personally, I agree that men are a major source of objectification for women. However, I also believe that women are a source of objectification as well.
Consider the magazine sections of a bookstore (I have always though that these sections are great measurements of society as a whole). What are the magazines under "Women's Interests"? Wedding magazines, diet magazines, fashion magazines, and celerity news (Perhaps this last magazine would be placed in periodicals). True, we find porn magazines under "Men's Interests", but this does not conflict with what I am trying to prove. Not only do men objectify women, but women objectify themselves and each other.
Think about fashion. Most girls choose their dress and shoes not only based on their expectations that men will objectify them on the streets, but based more on the fact that they expect to be judged by other women at the party.
When discussing this with some friends, someone remarked that this is not a girl's choice to have to wear heels, makeup and straighten hair, etc., but rather that society imposes this on them. Their argument was that women feel forced to comply to the mechanisms that objectify them, and it is hard to break out of it. On its face, I think this argument is correct. There are social pressures that force women to behave in certain ways, just as there are social pressures that make people do all sorts of things. However, her argument fails to address the source of such pressure. My argument isn't that since women objectify themselves they can easily break the chain of objectification, but rather that this very real, strong force originates and is propelled from men, as well as from women in society.
The questions that remain are: Which source of objectification of women is stronger? And how do we go about changing this social pressure in society?
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Communities
Sociologists argue that we are living in a post-modern society, in which people value individualism to an extreme. For example, Robert Putnam observed this is his book "Bowling Alone" in which he noticed trends among the general population to go bowling alone, instead of in groups, or as part of leagues. The argument is that in the post-modern age, communities are no longer as wide-spread and far-reaching as they once were, and the degree of their importance has diminished.
One way this phenomenon manifests is in Synagogue (and Church) attendance and participation. Since people no longer feel compelled to belong to a larger community, they are less likely to become members at Synagogues, or get involved with programming at these synagogues.
However, I think that Putnam, and like minded sociologists failed to recognize the role that technology plays in society. After all, our facebook friends (at leas the core of them that we share links and comments with) are a great example of how community exists in this "post-modern" age. The numerous events from which we get invites, testifies to the fact that community is alive and well and that friends do stay in touch and do activities together.
This is not only evidenced through facebook, but through online video game communities, or any website that contains a forum. Wherever there is an element of personal opinion that is linked to real individuals (this excludes anonymous posts on youtube which are meaningless), there exists a community. By real individuals, I mean individuals with an identity that can be identified and understood by others in that community, be it a pseudonym or actual name.
Therefore, I would argue that if synagogues or churches are struggling with membership and participation, then they are simply not tapping into the mediums that instill community in our "post-modern" society. Subsequently, I would argue that Synagogues should create forums and list serves, as well as revamp rituals, in order to close the distance between individuals in society.'
However, are these two types of community really the same?
One way this phenomenon manifests is in Synagogue (and Church) attendance and participation. Since people no longer feel compelled to belong to a larger community, they are less likely to become members at Synagogues, or get involved with programming at these synagogues.
However, I think that Putnam, and like minded sociologists failed to recognize the role that technology plays in society. After all, our facebook friends (at leas the core of them that we share links and comments with) are a great example of how community exists in this "post-modern" age. The numerous events from which we get invites, testifies to the fact that community is alive and well and that friends do stay in touch and do activities together.
This is not only evidenced through facebook, but through online video game communities, or any website that contains a forum. Wherever there is an element of personal opinion that is linked to real individuals (this excludes anonymous posts on youtube which are meaningless), there exists a community. By real individuals, I mean individuals with an identity that can be identified and understood by others in that community, be it a pseudonym or actual name.
Therefore, I would argue that if synagogues or churches are struggling with membership and participation, then they are simply not tapping into the mediums that instill community in our "post-modern" society. Subsequently, I would argue that Synagogues should create forums and list serves, as well as revamp rituals, in order to close the distance between individuals in society.'
However, are these two types of community really the same?
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Representative Art
One of the key ways I procrastinate is via Online Games. One site that I often visit is OMGPOP. On this site, they have a game called "Draw My Thing" which basically is a type of pictionary where you get a word, and you have to draw the word for other online players.
What I noticed is that when we communicate with pictures, we communicate through a symbolic sort of shorthand. Instead of drawing a real life human, it is easier to draw a stick figure. Instead of literally drawing lotion, we draw a man with a sunburn and a bottle - with the hopes that someone will guess "sun tan lotion" and therefore finding the word lotion.
This is not only true of "Draw My Thing" but also of games like Taboo. In such games, we tap into a cultural reference bank and think of other ways to arrive at words without actually describing the word directly (since such directness is either complicated - i.e. too hard to draw, or taboo - i.e. against the game rules)
On the converse side, I also draw what some people would consider "artistic picture". In one of my classes, I don't have a notebook and rely on some friends to lend me a piece or two per class. Then, I tax myself and draw them a picture to make up for my "burden". Usually my drawings might be of cars, or buildings. But what is interesting is that the picture of the cars that I draw in this class are more realistic and full of detail and size proportions, then my simple two dimensional, profile of a car with wheels that sort of resembles a punch buggy.
My point is: in different situations, we have different ideas to communicate. Often when we have time constraints or other limitations (rules or ability) we get the point across as best we can. Moreover, the our culture helps create and maintain symbols that we can utilize in order to more effectively get our idea conveyed to another person.
Overall, I think it is an interesting angle to think about communication.
What I noticed is that when we communicate with pictures, we communicate through a symbolic sort of shorthand. Instead of drawing a real life human, it is easier to draw a stick figure. Instead of literally drawing lotion, we draw a man with a sunburn and a bottle - with the hopes that someone will guess "sun tan lotion" and therefore finding the word lotion.
This is not only true of "Draw My Thing" but also of games like Taboo. In such games, we tap into a cultural reference bank and think of other ways to arrive at words without actually describing the word directly (since such directness is either complicated - i.e. too hard to draw, or taboo - i.e. against the game rules)
On the converse side, I also draw what some people would consider "artistic picture". In one of my classes, I don't have a notebook and rely on some friends to lend me a piece or two per class. Then, I tax myself and draw them a picture to make up for my "burden". Usually my drawings might be of cars, or buildings. But what is interesting is that the picture of the cars that I draw in this class are more realistic and full of detail and size proportions, then my simple two dimensional, profile of a car with wheels that sort of resembles a punch buggy.
My point is: in different situations, we have different ideas to communicate. Often when we have time constraints or other limitations (rules or ability) we get the point across as best we can. Moreover, the our culture helps create and maintain symbols that we can utilize in order to more effectively get our idea conveyed to another person.
Overall, I think it is an interesting angle to think about communication.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Hair Length
Why does the hair on your head keep growing to an indefinite length, but some other hair stops at a certain length?
Take your eyebrows for example. If you pluck your eyebrows, they grow back quickly. But it never gets so long that it is hanging in your eyes...
Why indeed...
Take your eyebrows for example. If you pluck your eyebrows, they grow back quickly. But it never gets so long that it is hanging in your eyes...
Why indeed...
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Walking a Thin Line
Up until this point, I have blogged purely about secular topics. However, since Judaism is in integral part of my life, it is something I spend a lot of time thinking about.
There were two reasons I previously chose not to deal with Jewish topics. The first reason stemmed from my belief of universal accessibility. I believed that by delving into Jewish topics, non-Jewish readers of my blog would feel alienated. However, upon reflection, I feel that there are many Jewish topics which have much in common with topics from other religions and therefore accessible for any religious person to reflect upon.
This brings me to my second reason for why my blog previously did not discuss Jewish religious topics; that there is a taboo against talking about religion in our post-modern society. In an era where individualism often conflicts with religious identity, the social discourse on religion becomes taboo. However, I feel that once one can look past the religious component of a concept, there is still much to learn about life and how humans experience it.
With this preface in mind, I hope to talk about the first religious concept in my blog while proving the points I have made above. This topic is that there should be a thin line between what you think and how you act.
As I was praying one day, I realized that it is not enough to just say the words and believe the words, but one must do those words. For example, if we are praying about a world of peace, that means that we must seek peace (between ourselves and others, and peace within ourselves), and we must seek this peace now; not tomorrow, not later, but now. This does not only apply to Jewish religious practice, but to all religious practice.
While this concept came to me through religious practice, it has implications for non religious practice as well. Most noticeably in my life, this concept was applied to my choice to become a vegetarian. As I realized that my reasons for eating meat diminished and that the reasons not to eat meat grew, I successfully minimized the line between thought and action and began to change my eating practices. Therefore, while this concept came through a religious medium, a secular practical implication of this concept can also be discerned if one can successfully look past this outer religious shell.
The questions to think about are as follows: (1) In what ways is religion a taboo topic? And more importantly: (2) How can one diminish the density/width of the line between thought and action?
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Taking Offense to Ads
Every now an then I will be watching TV and some ridiculous commercial will vie for my attention. Usually, commercials are just uninteresting since I am not in the market for a car, and every so often you get a commercial which you think is just so interesting, you will mention it in your next conversation with a friend.
However, there are some commercials that are just so stupid, you are insulted that the company thinks so low of you. Such commercials tell you how to think, how to react. They presuppose that you lack intellectual integrity. In such instances you might roll your eyes while lightly shaking your head side to side, or struggle to find the remote to change the channel.
Therefore, the question is: How effective are such stupid commercials? Do they do their job and successfully advertise an object you may or may not want? Or do they subtract from the product making you not want to buy it and suppress the advertisement from you consciousness?
However, there are some commercials that are just so stupid, you are insulted that the company thinks so low of you. Such commercials tell you how to think, how to react. They presuppose that you lack intellectual integrity. In such instances you might roll your eyes while lightly shaking your head side to side, or struggle to find the remote to change the channel.
Therefore, the question is: How effective are such stupid commercials? Do they do their job and successfully advertise an object you may or may not want? Or do they subtract from the product making you not want to buy it and suppress the advertisement from you consciousness?
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Where's Waldo?
So I just got this great gift the other day. It was an all-in-one Where's Waldo book that had every Waldo book I've ever known. (Its Wally in England, אפי in Israel, and other names in other places)
I'm already done with two of the five books, but it got me thinking.
First, I began thinking about how busy the page is. There are so many things going on, I could look at the page for half an hour (sometimes longer) and still not take in every detail. I find that I particular like art that captivates your attention. Whether its through colors or detail, I tend to like art that I can spend a lot of time examining the details. Perhaps that why I like impressionism - specifically because the colors are not what you would expect them to be and the image still seems natural.
Second, I was thinking about puns. The clues in the back of the book often are puns relating to the pictures. For example, a flying ace was depicted as a biplane with a playing card (the Ace) in the drivers seat. Why is it that when depicted, puns are funnier than when they are spoken allowed? Why is it clever when represented in a physical form, but in the mental form it is not so amusing?
Think about it.
I'm already done with two of the five books, but it got me thinking.
First, I began thinking about how busy the page is. There are so many things going on, I could look at the page for half an hour (sometimes longer) and still not take in every detail. I find that I particular like art that captivates your attention. Whether its through colors or detail, I tend to like art that I can spend a lot of time examining the details. Perhaps that why I like impressionism - specifically because the colors are not what you would expect them to be and the image still seems natural.
Second, I was thinking about puns. The clues in the back of the book often are puns relating to the pictures. For example, a flying ace was depicted as a biplane with a playing card (the Ace) in the drivers seat. Why is it that when depicted, puns are funnier than when they are spoken allowed? Why is it clever when represented in a physical form, but in the mental form it is not so amusing?
Think about it.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Cracking Knuckles
Why do people (including myself) crack their knuckles?
Its not like our knuckles hurt and need to crack them. And the "comfort" we receive after cracking them is nothing noteworthy!
Its a common habit that people have, but why do they start in the first place?
I think it has to do with the same reasons people twiddle their thumbs or absently play with things when distracted. Its just something to do with your hands (ultimately becoming a habit).
Moreover, there may be some element of OCD that a person can't just leave one knuckle cracked without cracking all the rest. I think therefore that this reinforces the habit and adds to the reason why people crack their knuckles.
Or maybe thats the reason for me. What do you think?
Its not like our knuckles hurt and need to crack them. And the "comfort" we receive after cracking them is nothing noteworthy!
Its a common habit that people have, but why do they start in the first place?
I think it has to do with the same reasons people twiddle their thumbs or absently play with things when distracted. Its just something to do with your hands (ultimately becoming a habit).
Moreover, there may be some element of OCD that a person can't just leave one knuckle cracked without cracking all the rest. I think therefore that this reinforces the habit and adds to the reason why people crack their knuckles.
Or maybe thats the reason for me. What do you think?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The Rain Formula?
When I was walking home yesterday, it began to rain. As it progressively began to rain harder and harder, people began running towards their destinations in order to get there less wet.
However, does running in the rain keep you less wet? Perhaps you are in the rain for not as much time, but then you are hitting more raindrops along the way - horizontally. I suppose that if it was really pouring, you might get wet either way - but in a moderate rain, is it better to walk and hit less raindrops, or run and hit more?
There must be some sort of equation that includes distance, speed, amount of rain and the surface area of the person. I don't know if such a formula could be applied to real life (like measuring the amount of raindrops per second - or knowing your surface area...) but I still think it is something worth pondering.
However, does running in the rain keep you less wet? Perhaps you are in the rain for not as much time, but then you are hitting more raindrops along the way - horizontally. I suppose that if it was really pouring, you might get wet either way - but in a moderate rain, is it better to walk and hit less raindrops, or run and hit more?
There must be some sort of equation that includes distance, speed, amount of rain and the surface area of the person. I don't know if such a formula could be applied to real life (like measuring the amount of raindrops per second - or knowing your surface area...) but I still think it is something worth pondering.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Compliments to the Chef
This has been a "problem" that has been bothering me for some time now.
If two people cook a dish together, who gets the compliments?
a. The person who thought up the overall idea for the dish? (i.e. the person who finds the recipe)
or
b. The person who measures and follows the directions?
Many times, I have cooked meals with others and usually I am the one who just measures and mixes. Then puts in the oven, and sticks a fork in the end dish, and takes it out. But I don't feel that I really did anything. Maybe all the work I put into mixing will effect the texture of a dish, but its overall taste? I doubt it.
Therefore, I think the person who thinks up the dish should get the credit. And whoever mixes and measures is just a sous chef.
Though that's just my opinion. I'm sure there are many who disagree...
If two people cook a dish together, who gets the compliments?
a. The person who thought up the overall idea for the dish? (i.e. the person who finds the recipe)
or
b. The person who measures and follows the directions?
Many times, I have cooked meals with others and usually I am the one who just measures and mixes. Then puts in the oven, and sticks a fork in the end dish, and takes it out. But I don't feel that I really did anything. Maybe all the work I put into mixing will effect the texture of a dish, but its overall taste? I doubt it.
Therefore, I think the person who thinks up the dish should get the credit. And whoever mixes and measures is just a sous chef.
Though that's just my opinion. I'm sure there are many who disagree...
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Drake Equation
I took an astronomy class a few years ago and in that class we learned about the drake equation. This mathematical formula is a theoretical formula that predicts the number of intelligent (communication-able) life forms in our universe based some known and unknown variables (that require estimations).
The equation is as follows:
R + Fp + Ne + Fl + Fi + Fc + L = N
Where,
R is the number of stars in our galaxy that form (like our sun) per year.
Scientists figured out that in infant galaxies stars form rather quickly...about 50 per year. Meaning the number here must be smaller than 50 for our older galaxy...(lets use 50)
Fp is the fraction of these stars that develop planets.
Scientists have found about 500 planets around other stars. knowing we don't have the technology to find them all, and knowing that there are between 200 - 400 billion stars in the milky way, a guess of 1/1000 or .001 stars would be more than a conservative guess (that's 200 million to 600 million stars with planetary systems...)
Ne is the number of Earth like planets in these planetary systems.
Your guess is as good as any astronomers. Lets say that like our system, only 1-2 planet will be Earth like.
Fl is the fraction where life develops on these Earth like planets?
Who knows? Lets say .2
Fi is the fraction of these planets where intelligent life develops.
Well the only life we know of is on Earth, and we developed intelligent life. but that doesn't mean anything so lets say .25
Fc is the fraction of these planets where communication develops.
Again, using Earth as a baseline, lets go with 1.
L is the lifespan of these communicative civilizations.
There are two points to add here. first, Humans have only known about radio waves since 1865. That is about 150 years ago. With that said, we have only been listening and transmitting for a shorter amount of time. Lets say we have been transmitting for 100 years.
Second, if you ignore technological improvements that make past means of communications useless, imagine where humans were 1000 years ago. Now imagine 1000 years from now. Lets say we communicate for the same way for about 1000 years (a very very conservative estimate).
Ok, lets plug in the numbers. If my math is correct, that 500 planets with intelligent life. Now while that is completely speculative, there are more things to consider.
Forget language barriers
Forget technology barriers
Think about the size of our galaxy (100,000 light years). using simple probability, that means that in our hypothetical universe each life form is an average of 200 light years away. Meaning, if we send them a message, now, we will receive a response in 400 years (there and back)...that means we can talk to them twice in our 1000 year communication capable lifetime.
Many hypothetical possibilities and assumption, but you get the gist. Here is a handy site for your calculations:
http://www.pbs.org/lifebeyondearth/listening/drake.html
I'm skeptical about finding this life if it exists. And if it does, I probably (hypothetically) won't know about it in my life time..
The equation is as follows:
R + Fp + Ne + Fl + Fi + Fc + L = N
Where,
R is the number of stars in our galaxy that form (like our sun) per year.
Scientists figured out that in infant galaxies stars form rather quickly...about 50 per year. Meaning the number here must be smaller than 50 for our older galaxy...(lets use 50)
Fp is the fraction of these stars that develop planets.
Scientists have found about 500 planets around other stars. knowing we don't have the technology to find them all, and knowing that there are between 200 - 400 billion stars in the milky way, a guess of 1/1000 or .001 stars would be more than a conservative guess (that's 200 million to 600 million stars with planetary systems...)
Ne is the number of Earth like planets in these planetary systems.
Your guess is as good as any astronomers. Lets say that like our system, only 1-2 planet will be Earth like.
Fl is the fraction where life develops on these Earth like planets?
Who knows? Lets say .2
Fi is the fraction of these planets where intelligent life develops.
Well the only life we know of is on Earth, and we developed intelligent life. but that doesn't mean anything so lets say .25
Fc is the fraction of these planets where communication develops.
Again, using Earth as a baseline, lets go with 1.
L is the lifespan of these communicative civilizations.
There are two points to add here. first, Humans have only known about radio waves since 1865. That is about 150 years ago. With that said, we have only been listening and transmitting for a shorter amount of time. Lets say we have been transmitting for 100 years.
Second, if you ignore technological improvements that make past means of communications useless, imagine where humans were 1000 years ago. Now imagine 1000 years from now. Lets say we communicate for the same way for about 1000 years (a very very conservative estimate).
Ok, lets plug in the numbers. If my math is correct, that 500 planets with intelligent life. Now while that is completely speculative, there are more things to consider.
Forget language barriers
Forget technology barriers
Think about the size of our galaxy (100,000 light years). using simple probability, that means that in our hypothetical universe each life form is an average of 200 light years away. Meaning, if we send them a message, now, we will receive a response in 400 years (there and back)...that means we can talk to them twice in our 1000 year communication capable lifetime.
Many hypothetical possibilities and assumption, but you get the gist. Here is a handy site for your calculations:
http://www.pbs.org/lifebeyondearth/listening/drake.html
I'm skeptical about finding this life if it exists. And if it does, I probably (hypothetically) won't know about it in my life time..
Friday, June 25, 2010
Inventions
Have you ever wondered how some foods came to be?
Like how did bread come about? Someone must have found a grain, crushed it up, mixed it with water and placed over a fire. That's not exactly intuitive.
What about cola flavored sodas. Where did this flavor come from? How many other failed flavors did it take before they found the Cola flavor that we all love?
Ketchup...what is it even made of?
Who was the first one to mix peanut butter and jelly?
Also, the chocolate bean? I don't even know the relationship between the bean and chocolate.
There are so many foods that I wonder how people thought to make them. Was it because of boredom? Unemployment?
Who knows...
Like how did bread come about? Someone must have found a grain, crushed it up, mixed it with water and placed over a fire. That's not exactly intuitive.
What about cola flavored sodas. Where did this flavor come from? How many other failed flavors did it take before they found the Cola flavor that we all love?
Ketchup...what is it even made of?
Who was the first one to mix peanut butter and jelly?
Also, the chocolate bean? I don't even know the relationship between the bean and chocolate.
There are so many foods that I wonder how people thought to make them. Was it because of boredom? Unemployment?
Who knows...
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Atoms
Here is something to think about.
An atom is made up of protons and electrons. You can do a quick easy search and you will find that within the entire area of an atom 99.9999999999999% is empty space.
That's right. When you clap your hands, .0000000000001% of matter in you left hand stops the .0000000000001% of matter in your right hand.
Hmmmm
An atom is made up of protons and electrons. You can do a quick easy search and you will find that within the entire area of an atom 99.9999999999999% is empty space.
That's right. When you clap your hands, .0000000000001% of matter in you left hand stops the .0000000000001% of matter in your right hand.
Hmmmm
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Magical Machines
It often bothers me that people use machines and technology while having no idea how they work. Now I am not talking about knowing all the exact details on how to build a computer chip or maintain a car, but rather the basic understanding of computer and auto parts. You don't need to know how the combustion of gas in a car propels the vehicle to get from place to place, however one should. When someone doesn't know those details, I feel like they are ignorantly living.
There are two instances in my life that illustrate this point. The first is from literature. In a new book from the fantasy genre, a magical character tries to explain how magic is a tool just like technology. She argues to the protagonist that just like he doesn't know how the phone works, so too -- she doesn't know why magic works and what it does. She says something along the lines of: "you don't know how the voice is recorded by the phone and passed through the air to any location to another person whose device interprets the data..." However, I think we should know how that works. We should know about radio waves and how they are transmitted and received, we should know about cell towers and satelites, we should know about electro-magnetism and speakers, and we should know about electricity and digital storage and transmission of information. This doesn't mean we should be able to build a phone from scratch, but rather that we have a general understanding of how things work.
Another example comes from an Android commercial. The Claim: Android searches the sky and projects an image of the sky on your phone - with labels for the astronomical features. To the ignorant user, that is what the phone does - it searches the sky. However, the user should understand GPS and digital sky charts, and physics and astronomical calculations that make such programs feasible.
It is not that technology is magical, but rather there are simple techniques and devices that are used ingeniously to fulfill certain functions. For example, a CD is is just a thin string miles long that either has spot with indents or not indents that reflect a laser to send information --- 1's or 0's. Similarly, ones Hard-drive functions the same way but on a much larger scale, but slightly different. Understanding how data is stored, how cars work, how phones work, allows people to appreciate the world without the lens of ignorance.
I am not saying that we need to be able to understand things to the point of perfect detail, but rather we should learn things as much as possible and appreciate the brilliance behind the technology which we possess. Its often not to hard to grasp. Websites like www.howthingswork.com are great resources. Take a peek and open your eyes...
There are two instances in my life that illustrate this point. The first is from literature. In a new book from the fantasy genre, a magical character tries to explain how magic is a tool just like technology. She argues to the protagonist that just like he doesn't know how the phone works, so too -- she doesn't know why magic works and what it does. She says something along the lines of: "you don't know how the voice is recorded by the phone and passed through the air to any location to another person whose device interprets the data..." However, I think we should know how that works. We should know about radio waves and how they are transmitted and received, we should know about cell towers and satelites, we should know about electro-magnetism and speakers, and we should know about electricity and digital storage and transmission of information. This doesn't mean we should be able to build a phone from scratch, but rather that we have a general understanding of how things work.
Another example comes from an Android commercial. The Claim: Android searches the sky and projects an image of the sky on your phone - with labels for the astronomical features. To the ignorant user, that is what the phone does - it searches the sky. However, the user should understand GPS and digital sky charts, and physics and astronomical calculations that make such programs feasible.
It is not that technology is magical, but rather there are simple techniques and devices that are used ingeniously to fulfill certain functions. For example, a CD is is just a thin string miles long that either has spot with indents or not indents that reflect a laser to send information --- 1's or 0's. Similarly, ones Hard-drive functions the same way but on a much larger scale, but slightly different. Understanding how data is stored, how cars work, how phones work, allows people to appreciate the world without the lens of ignorance.
I am not saying that we need to be able to understand things to the point of perfect detail, but rather we should learn things as much as possible and appreciate the brilliance behind the technology which we possess. Its often not to hard to grasp. Websites like www.howthingswork.com are great resources. Take a peek and open your eyes...
Monday, March 22, 2010
Hiding Behind Anonymity
I think it is obvious that when people can hide their identity, they will do things they normally would not do. Often times I find myself doing embarrassing actions in public, but not really caring because nobody knows who I am. Conversely, had I been in a room with people who are always with me, then I probably would feel more embarrassed.
This distinction is obvious. When we are worried about our reputation and "ruining our names" then we are extra aware of the people who around us who may know us. If we are convinced that people don't know us, then we feel comfortable doing things we normally wouldn't do.
However, I think there is more to this than just inconsequential things. For example, one of the interesting things about Youtube is that the people who comment do so anonymously. They can say whatever they want no matter how prejudice or hateful. Since there are no consequences to their actions, they can be outright rude to others without having to worry about ruining their own reputation. (Compare to Facebook where the people who right on your wall are identifiable and therefore accountable)
I think also, this could be applied to crime in general and to more broader social settings. Think about the New York subway for a moment. Plenty people graffiti and trash the subway system. However what if people were identinfied as having been on a certain car at a certain time. Each person could hold a radio emitting ID card that could identify them. Then each car can scan for the IDs and people will be linked to the cars that they are on. In other words, you can only ride the subway if you identify who you are. And once you do that, then you are less likely to commit a crime. (The problem would be if someone lost their Id card...but then they should cancel it ASAP like a credit card)
If people are identified in real life (and online) then I am convinced that a lot of the information on the internet would be more trustworthy and the slander will be limited - because people will only want to communicate with people who they can trust and with people who do not need to hide behind anonymous personalities. Also, crime will be less because people then would be identifiable.
Setback? Big Brother is watching...
This distinction is obvious. When we are worried about our reputation and "ruining our names" then we are extra aware of the people who around us who may know us. If we are convinced that people don't know us, then we feel comfortable doing things we normally wouldn't do.
However, I think there is more to this than just inconsequential things. For example, one of the interesting things about Youtube is that the people who comment do so anonymously. They can say whatever they want no matter how prejudice or hateful. Since there are no consequences to their actions, they can be outright rude to others without having to worry about ruining their own reputation. (Compare to Facebook where the people who right on your wall are identifiable and therefore accountable)
I think also, this could be applied to crime in general and to more broader social settings. Think about the New York subway for a moment. Plenty people graffiti and trash the subway system. However what if people were identinfied as having been on a certain car at a certain time. Each person could hold a radio emitting ID card that could identify them. Then each car can scan for the IDs and people will be linked to the cars that they are on. In other words, you can only ride the subway if you identify who you are. And once you do that, then you are less likely to commit a crime. (The problem would be if someone lost their Id card...but then they should cancel it ASAP like a credit card)
If people are identified in real life (and online) then I am convinced that a lot of the information on the internet would be more trustworthy and the slander will be limited - because people will only want to communicate with people who they can trust and with people who do not need to hide behind anonymous personalities. Also, crime will be less because people then would be identifiable.
Setback? Big Brother is watching...
Monday, March 8, 2010
Music
Have you ever noticed the different ways you listen to music?
I think it is interesting that when we listen to music it is hard to take in everything all at once. Yes we can "hear" all of it, but it is very hard to pay attention to all the details of the song. We can usually hear a song over and over again and pick up on small musical facets that we have never heard before.
Usually there is some harmony that I miss, or a chord that really hits home. Sometimes, I try to listen to the instruments to see if I can name them all, and often discover melodies and beats that were completely lost in the whole.
Moreover, I think music is something that we often underestimate. We often see it as a means for entertainment. However, we allocate much of our memory to lyrics and often find ourself humming tunes throughout the day. I don't think this allocation is a waste of space. Rather I think these memories are capital that we use at later times to support and remember feelings that are not immediately available. The feelings that songs evoke remain with us and return to us whenever we hear those same songs.
Music is more than just some sounds. It is rather a complex collection of sounds that ultimately capture our attention over and over again and continually invoke memories and emotions. I think we too often underestimate its power and importance.
I think it is interesting that when we listen to music it is hard to take in everything all at once. Yes we can "hear" all of it, but it is very hard to pay attention to all the details of the song. We can usually hear a song over and over again and pick up on small musical facets that we have never heard before.
Usually there is some harmony that I miss, or a chord that really hits home. Sometimes, I try to listen to the instruments to see if I can name them all, and often discover melodies and beats that were completely lost in the whole.
Moreover, I think music is something that we often underestimate. We often see it as a means for entertainment. However, we allocate much of our memory to lyrics and often find ourself humming tunes throughout the day. I don't think this allocation is a waste of space. Rather I think these memories are capital that we use at later times to support and remember feelings that are not immediately available. The feelings that songs evoke remain with us and return to us whenever we hear those same songs.
Music is more than just some sounds. It is rather a complex collection of sounds that ultimately capture our attention over and over again and continually invoke memories and emotions. I think we too often underestimate its power and importance.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Meat
I think one of the interesting things about eating meat is how removed we are from the process. We never see the animal, kill the animal, skin the animal, carve the animal, drain the blood and dispose of the corpse. Moreover, when we get the finished product, we remove ourselves further by hardly even calling the meat what it really is.
We call it beef, hamburgers, brisket, bologna and never cow.
We often call chicken white meat, dark meat or buffalo wings...
I think that the very fact that we get queasy when thinking about skinning cows and carving the meat off their bones demonstrates a quintessential fact about our common meat eating tendencies.We think it is gross, but we like how it tastes.
However, I think that by removing ourselves so much from the this process, we downplay the status of living animals. From an standoffish place, we begin to equate objects and animals as equal objects. Just like how my chair underwent some sort of production and assembly line, so too did my meat. I don't care about the process, I only care about the end result.
This line of thinking is unfair. Not to say that we should not eat meat, but rather that when we eat meat, we should at least acknowledge that process and try to think a little bit more about where meat comes from. Animals and Minerals are not equal.
Interestingly, if you are to agree that we should think a little bit more about where meat comes from and not take it for granted, I think that you can also apply that to many aspects of life. The labor put into the creation of your possessions and the natural processes that enabled nature to produce the materials for our possessions both demonstrate a level of meaning that we often ignore, that I think can only enhance our daily experiences.
We call it beef, hamburgers, brisket, bologna and never cow.
We often call chicken white meat, dark meat or buffalo wings...
I think that the very fact that we get queasy when thinking about skinning cows and carving the meat off their bones demonstrates a quintessential fact about our common meat eating tendencies.We think it is gross, but we like how it tastes.
However, I think that by removing ourselves so much from the this process, we downplay the status of living animals. From an standoffish place, we begin to equate objects and animals as equal objects. Just like how my chair underwent some sort of production and assembly line, so too did my meat. I don't care about the process, I only care about the end result.
This line of thinking is unfair. Not to say that we should not eat meat, but rather that when we eat meat, we should at least acknowledge that process and try to think a little bit more about where meat comes from. Animals and Minerals are not equal.
Interestingly, if you are to agree that we should think a little bit more about where meat comes from and not take it for granted, I think that you can also apply that to many aspects of life. The labor put into the creation of your possessions and the natural processes that enabled nature to produce the materials for our possessions both demonstrate a level of meaning that we often ignore, that I think can only enhance our daily experiences.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Self Reflection
You may also have had this experience.
As a kid, you know every facet of your room. You know all the cracks in the roof, where the carpet is loose from the wall, the patterns in the wood of your furniture and even the creaks and squeaks of your door. OK, you might not have known these exact specific things, but you did know the unique facets of your room/house that really made it your house.
I find that as we get older we stop paying attention to those little details. We only have time for the "important" things and rarely stop moving to just take in our surroundings. Moving from computer to the TV news, to HW to reading, to cooking, to shopping, we often don't take the time and just sit and look around. To explore. To wonder.
I noticed this one day as I took a break from writing a paper, and instead of switching to checking an email or taking a nap, I just sat on my couch and looked around. And I remembered what it was like as a kid to just sit in one place and just look around.
Even when we have a day off from work or school, we still don't stop and look around - even when their might be a religious normative message to do so. We often go from meal, to sleep, to errands, to readings and still keep ourselves busy by always doing something.
However, I think that this constant moving around takes its toll. Not only do we lose the details that for some reason provide those aesthetic beautiful memories, but we also lose the time for self reflection. We know so much about so many things in life, but we don't know a lot about ourselves. Besides the larger philosophical questions of who we are and where we are going, I think we must ask the smaller questions that pay attention to details-
What motivates us to do work?
What meals of the day make me feel more energized?
How productive am I each day? Each week?
What makes me mad? How can I be more patient?
What can I do differently?
Is what I did today the best way to have done it?
I think that we often take the first answer that comes into our minds. While these might be good answers, they may not include a more comprehensive list. We should really think and rethink and try to understand what it is that makes us tick; how we work and respond to different situations.
We must pay attention to our inner details and really try to "slow down," reflect, and relax.
As a kid, you know every facet of your room. You know all the cracks in the roof, where the carpet is loose from the wall, the patterns in the wood of your furniture and even the creaks and squeaks of your door. OK, you might not have known these exact specific things, but you did know the unique facets of your room/house that really made it your house.
I find that as we get older we stop paying attention to those little details. We only have time for the "important" things and rarely stop moving to just take in our surroundings. Moving from computer to the TV news, to HW to reading, to cooking, to shopping, we often don't take the time and just sit and look around. To explore. To wonder.
I noticed this one day as I took a break from writing a paper, and instead of switching to checking an email or taking a nap, I just sat on my couch and looked around. And I remembered what it was like as a kid to just sit in one place and just look around.
Even when we have a day off from work or school, we still don't stop and look around - even when their might be a religious normative message to do so. We often go from meal, to sleep, to errands, to readings and still keep ourselves busy by always doing something.
However, I think that this constant moving around takes its toll. Not only do we lose the details that for some reason provide those aesthetic beautiful memories, but we also lose the time for self reflection. We know so much about so many things in life, but we don't know a lot about ourselves. Besides the larger philosophical questions of who we are and where we are going, I think we must ask the smaller questions that pay attention to details-
What motivates us to do work?
What meals of the day make me feel more energized?
How productive am I each day? Each week?
What makes me mad? How can I be more patient?
What can I do differently?
Is what I did today the best way to have done it?
I think that we often take the first answer that comes into our minds. While these might be good answers, they may not include a more comprehensive list. We should really think and rethink and try to understand what it is that makes us tick; how we work and respond to different situations.
We must pay attention to our inner details and really try to "slow down," reflect, and relax.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The News
Everyone complains that journalists sentimentalize news stories. However, news networks still have good ratings and everyone still watches the news. Knowing that what they see should be taken with a grain of salt, viewers continue to encourage sentimentalized reporting.
Think about the alternative: People stop watching news networks that demonstrate bias. Instead they opt for new coverage that is fair and controls for misrepresentation and other socio-cultural errors. These news stories would be less engaging and people would stop watching.
This accounts for why people continue to watch highly biased networks (well the news network of your choice that best fits your own news outlook) and still complain that the media is unfair and weighted.
Circular logic at its best. - wanting the best of both worlds...
Ever wonder?
Think about the alternative: People stop watching news networks that demonstrate bias. Instead they opt for new coverage that is fair and controls for misrepresentation and other socio-cultural errors. These news stories would be less engaging and people would stop watching.
This accounts for why people continue to watch highly biased networks (well the news network of your choice that best fits your own news outlook) and still complain that the media is unfair and weighted.
Circular logic at its best. - wanting the best of both worlds...
Ever wonder?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Time Speeds up with Age
We have all heard parents claim that lives pass them by quickly and that their children grow up quickly. We also recount at the end of a high school or college how quickly time has passed by.
We also remember that when we used to be kids and our parents promised us 10 more minutes, those 10 minutes seemed like forever. Now, 10 minutes is 1/4 of the time it takes to get ready in the morning...
Now it could be that we were so self absorbed as kids that we didn't know that the 10 minutes our parents promised us was really 30 minutes. but I have a different theory:
I think that it has to do with our relationship with time. Therefore, when we are 4, a year is 1/4 of our lives! That is a very long time. Similarly, when one is 16, 4 years of high school is 1/4 of our life.
However, when you are in college at 20, those 4 years now become 1/5 of your life. Then when you are 32 and you have a 4 year old who grew up so quickly, it only took 1/8 of your life.
The point is: as time goes on, your points of reference continue to expand. Long periods of time seem shorter and life seems to pass by quicker.
That is my theory. Thoughts?
We also remember that when we used to be kids and our parents promised us 10 more minutes, those 10 minutes seemed like forever. Now, 10 minutes is 1/4 of the time it takes to get ready in the morning...
Now it could be that we were so self absorbed as kids that we didn't know that the 10 minutes our parents promised us was really 30 minutes. but I have a different theory:
I think that it has to do with our relationship with time. Therefore, when we are 4, a year is 1/4 of our lives! That is a very long time. Similarly, when one is 16, 4 years of high school is 1/4 of our life.
However, when you are in college at 20, those 4 years now become 1/5 of your life. Then when you are 32 and you have a 4 year old who grew up so quickly, it only took 1/8 of your life.
The point is: as time goes on, your points of reference continue to expand. Long periods of time seem shorter and life seems to pass by quicker.
That is my theory. Thoughts?
Friday, February 5, 2010
Hiccups
Take the moment to think about hiccups.
Its pretty strange that our diaphragm twitches as often as it does for long periods of time, while other twitches that we have only last a few seconds.
what makes it different than other muscles?
I am betting that it probably has to do with the fact that breathing is both involuntary and voluntary. I don't know why I think that, but I wouldn't be suprised if those two factors have something to do with it.
Why do we get hiccups more often than any other twitch?
Its pretty strange that our diaphragm twitches as often as it does for long periods of time, while other twitches that we have only last a few seconds.
what makes it different than other muscles?
I am betting that it probably has to do with the fact that breathing is both involuntary and voluntary. I don't know why I think that, but I wouldn't be suprised if those two factors have something to do with it.
Why do we get hiccups more often than any other twitch?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Text Messages are not IMs
Perhaps this experience has happened to you:
You get the simple text: "Hey, what's up?" Now, you obviously respond: "nm, whats up?" but you really want to say: "Thanks for wasting a text."
Then they respond: "I have a qusetion for you"
OK, two texts in, and still you don't have any information.
Then they ask the question, you respond, and then they have a follow up, so you respond again. Then they thank you.
They have sent you five, you have sent four back and you are now 9 text messages shorter than you were before.
I think that this happens because of IM technology. People become use to the ease of sending a gazillion messages a second on a computer and they translate those tendencies into phone texts. The fact that they have unlimited text messages doesn't help either.
Still, there is a much more efficient way. If you want a conversation, just call. If you can't call, then don't have a conversation. Ask the question and use all 160 characters, get the response and then be merry. If you need a follow up then that is OK. But 4 is much better than 10.
Since text messages are still new, the etiquette for their use is still under construction. Hopefully, by the end of the decade, we will have figured it out.
What other technological ettiquette are we still constructing?
Think about it!
You get the simple text: "Hey, what's up?" Now, you obviously respond: "nm, whats up?" but you really want to say: "Thanks for wasting a text."
Then they respond: "I have a qusetion for you"
OK, two texts in, and still you don't have any information.
Then they ask the question, you respond, and then they have a follow up, so you respond again. Then they thank you.
They have sent you five, you have sent four back and you are now 9 text messages shorter than you were before.
I think that this happens because of IM technology. People become use to the ease of sending a gazillion messages a second on a computer and they translate those tendencies into phone texts. The fact that they have unlimited text messages doesn't help either.
Still, there is a much more efficient way. If you want a conversation, just call. If you can't call, then don't have a conversation. Ask the question and use all 160 characters, get the response and then be merry. If you need a follow up then that is OK. But 4 is much better than 10.
Since text messages are still new, the etiquette for their use is still under construction. Hopefully, by the end of the decade, we will have figured it out.
What other technological ettiquette are we still constructing?
Think about it!
Monday, January 25, 2010
The Poke
Ever think about the Facebook Poke? From an objective standpoint, what is the point? It is alike a perpetual ping pong game. It loses its meaning and the poke continues just for the sake of pride and continuation.
At first the poke is a little fun gesture. but it never ends. And then people are poking for a month and it is habitual. And then over the years you lose touch with the other person and you are still poking them.
WHY?
At first the poke is a little fun gesture. but it never ends. And then people are poking for a month and it is habitual. And then over the years you lose touch with the other person and you are still poking them.
WHY?
Monday, January 11, 2010
Computers From the Past
Think about all the components of the computer that have lost their significance and meaning over time.
The Keyboard
- Think about the Escape key. Escape. Now that is a word that makes you feel stuck in a program and you need to close the program. Today however, we use that key to do very little. Besides ESCAPING from a full screen video, I never use that key.
- What about the function keys. F4 and F5 I used often, but the other 10? Nope never never.
- The insert Key. Please. When do I ever type and want insert on. Whereas the escape key can sit there and not cause problems, the insert key is a pain all around. When that key is accidentally pressed, your essay or blog post will never be the same as it used to be...
-Scroll Lock?!?!
The Mouse
- Now that the mouse has scroll wheels, why include scroll bar buttons on the sides of windows? OK, so some people might not have them, and sometimes the wheels arn't accurate, but it still makes you think how redundant some features of computers are.
Other Things
- Why is the save icon a floppy disc. I bet there are people who don't even know what those are. At least printers still look like printers.
- Do you have any other thoughts?
The Keyboard
- Think about the Escape key. Escape. Now that is a word that makes you feel stuck in a program and you need to close the program. Today however, we use that key to do very little. Besides ESCAPING from a full screen video, I never use that key.
- What about the function keys. F4 and F5 I used often, but the other 10? Nope never never.
- The insert Key. Please. When do I ever type and want insert on. Whereas the escape key can sit there and not cause problems, the insert key is a pain all around. When that key is accidentally pressed, your essay or blog post will never be the same as it used to be...
-Scroll Lock?!?!
The Mouse
- Now that the mouse has scroll wheels, why include scroll bar buttons on the sides of windows? OK, so some people might not have them, and sometimes the wheels arn't accurate, but it still makes you think how redundant some features of computers are.
Other Things
- Why is the save icon a floppy disc. I bet there are people who don't even know what those are. At least printers still look like printers.
- Do you have any other thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)