Hats off to the Seahawks. I hate them, but they were the best team in the league this year and deserved to win. As a 49er fan I'm just gutted because now it seems clear they were the 2nd best team in the NFL.
I cannot express how annoying the UK coverage of the Super Bowl was. The announcers kept making really bad mistakes: one repeatedly referred to Seahawks receiver "Daniel Baldwin"; the main (Scottish) guy claimed at halftime that Seattle was winning because Russell Wilson was "on fire". Uh, was he watching the same game? Seattle's D (and special teams) utterly dominated. That was the game. Sometimes we complain in the US about announcers saying dumb things, but the UK just takes it to another level.
I enjoyed Khaled Hosseini (author of The Kite Runner)'s tribute to Candlestick Park. It made me realize one reason why I love football so much: it's probably the first thing in my life that made me feel really American. Asian-Americans have these complicated issues of feeling split and mixed identities. In my early childhood, I was raised Korean. I spoke only Korean at home, ate Korean food, went to a Korean church. So I remember feeling really out of place when I first attended school.
But once I got in the 49ers, I felt a commonality with my "American" classmates. I might eat weird food, they might think my house smells funny, I might have a bad Asian bowl haircut, but we could at least relate with the 49ers. I think that bond with my schoolmates is one reason why football means so much to me.
Speaking of identity, I realized something interesting about being a Korean-American in the UK. Being here, I'm kind of forced to choose which side - Korean or American - I identify with most. And I was trying to figure out why that is. And I figured out it's purely for other people - like it or not, other people need some sort of framework to understand who I am. And here, most people don't understand the nuances of being Korean-American; saying that confuses how they understand me rather than clarifying. So I have to choose. And which one I identify with subtly affects how people relate to me. I would be treated differently in the office if I categorized myself as Korean. Not necessarily badly, just differently.
But I identify myself as American, because of the two, that's closer to who I really am. And here's the weird thing - since that's how I categorize myself here, I find myself acting more "American" here than in the US. Like, I think I'm vocally louder here. Still not at all loud, just louder than I would be in the US. Because I'm playing the role of an American. Because that's how I identify myself here. Because I need to identify myself in one category to help others understand how to relate to me. It's weird.
Anyway yeah, Super Bowl. In the local papers the Super Bowl got news coverage but I'd say roughly equal (or slightly less) than the 6 Nations Rugby Tournament. It's still seen as an American curiosity more than anything else. People who think London can support an NFL franchise full time are delusional.
Also, are the Winter Olympics big news? I feel like it's hardly mentioned here, probably because Great Britain is not that good at winter sports. If it weren't for the ads on US TV shows, I wouldn't even know when they were starting.
Andrew Wilson in Christianity Today about how he simultaneously believes "in the fall of Adam and Eve, the argument from design, and Darwinian evolution." I'm tend to not be public about this but I roughly believe the same thing, and have for a long time, like, since I was 14. I used to not talk about it because in my youth, a Christian saying (s)he was sympathetic to evolution was treated like a heretic. I feel like it's more safe nowadays because, as the article notes, many prominent Evangelicals now say the same thing (among them, John Stott, J.I. Packer, and Tim Keller). So at least I'm in good company.
Jieun initially loved Amsterdam, then liked it considerably less once she learned more about the Red Light District and the drugs. One thing I learned: "Coffee Shops" in Amsterdam are not coffee shops. Joshua wanted a donut, and in search of one, he and I went into what I thought (based on the sign) was a US-style coffee shop. I barely stepped in the door but my lungs are still recovering.
I don't consider myself super spiritually sensitive to geography, but I have had isolated experiences where I've had a sense of something spiritual about a place. The summer of '95 I spent in Daejeon, Korea, I felt like there was a spiritual light there. I had virtually no community or real access to worship that whole summer, but I still felt a spiritual depth. I felt the opposite the summer of '98 in China, that there was spiritual darkness over the area. I felt a darkness in Amsterdam too, that kind of manifested itself in weird dreams and a lot of difficulty sleeping that felt abnormal. Strange place.
Highlights were the canals and the Anne Frank Museum. The latter is haunting and enraging. Super crowded, but highly recommended. We visited the Charles Dickens House on Christmas and this was vastly different - it's one of those house museums where it makes a huge difference that that's where she actually was.
One thing that stuck with me though was kind of a random video of her father, who talked about his reaction once he was given and first read her daughter's diaries after her death. He was shocked at the depth of her feelings and thoughts. Of course he talked to her every day while she was writing them, and she told him how she was feeling and what she was thinking, but he had no real idea about the depth and content of her inner life. And what he says is that he concludes that parents don't ever *really* know their children.
That thought lingered, because I think it's true, and I already see that in my own kids. I know there's depth to Abby's thought, and I already know that there are ways in which I'm terrible at understanding her. And I know this because she tells me - there are times when she's upset, and when I try to get her to explain why, and she tries to, she frequently ends with "you can't understand". And it's true. Part of it is I'm terrible at understanding women, because Jieun says the same thing, and Abby also frequently says "only mom can understand" (or asks for Jieun straightaway). But part of it is more fundamental also, I think, in that parents can't ever fully know their kids. Jieun thinks this distance is appropriate, that parents aren't supposed to be friends with their kids or fully know them, but that their job is to love them and release them to independence. In any case, the idea that I already don't fully know my kids, and that I may not even be supposed to - that's something I've been thinking about.
One interesting about The Netherlands is that there aren't a ton of taxis around, so we rode a lot of mass transit. And combinations of them. To get back this morning we walked to the train station, took a train to Rotterdam Central (I booked flights via Hipmunk and didn't carefully check the airport. It was only when we were waiting for our flight at Heathrow that I checked to make sure that the "Rotterdam" listed on our flight status is in Amsterdam and discovered to my astonishment that it's not), a bus from Rotterdam Central to the airport, a plane to London, then a taxi home. 5 modes of transit in one morning. Nuts.
Abby’s starting to reach an age where she has questions about faith. And I’m not quite sure how to address them.
The other night, she asked about how she can figure out if God is real, or if He’s not real, or if some other belief is true. I’m not aware of anyone else in her class being Christian, and her best friend’s family is atheist. If she were older, I would have went with an apologetics approach, about how history and (in my opinion) logic testify to the truth of the Gospel. That’s just how I tend to think myself - I think I’m unusual in that my faith has always been stronger in my head than in my heart. But that doesn’t work at all on someone so young. In the end, I went with sincerely asking that the Lord speak to her heart. And she’s been actively pursuing that. There was no children’s program on Sunday so they were in the main service, and when at the end our vicar asked if anyone is waiting for something and wanted prayer, Abby went to the front and received prayer to hear God’s voice.
I hope that works. But curious how other parents approach their kids’ questions like these.
I spent the vast majority of my life in the Bay Area, and it's fair to say that for most of my life I lived in a bubble. When I first went to Houston, I remember being surprised by random things. Rain in the summer! Humidity! True megachurches! Lots of really overweight people! It expanded my worldview, especially in challenging things I previously took for granted as being universal since I had no reason to think otherwise. That's one thing I love about travelling - being challenged to reconsider what's normal.
One of my main hopes in living in a different place for a while was to experience more of that, especially in regards to faith, to distinguish what's truly universal about Christianity and what's cultural. And I think that's happened somewhat. I find myself being surprised by little things, and sometimes surprised that I'm surprised, if that makes any sense.
One thing I've realised is that my Southern Baptist roots run deep when it comes to drinking. As you may or may not know, drinking (and dancing) is pretty much verboten for Southern Baptists. I didn't have a touch of alcohol before I turned 21 (save for a handful of communions at Catholic Masses) and even afterwards, very rarely drank as it felt vaguely wrong. Over the years I've changed quite a bit and now appreciate a good drink, and I'd hardly consider myself a Southern Baptist anymore, but that influence is apparently still there, because I was shocked when I came here. The attitudes toward drink are completely different from my Southern Baptist upbringing.
I think where I'd arrived in my own mentality is that drinking is fine but still in some sense "secular" and shouldn't be mixed with Christian activity. They don't have that hangup here - drinking is fully integrated with church activity. I had read before about C.S. Lewis's favourite pub but I don't think I ever really internalised what that means: they drank while talking about (at least part of the time) Christian things. That's how it is here. At church, they'll advertise get togethers at pubs. At church events, there's alcohol. At a recent church leaders' retreat, there was wine and scotch. Maybe that's not shocking for some, but it was for me, which again, made me realise my Southern Baptistness.
One thing that blew my mind: we went to this retreat over the summer for the the Holy Trinity Brompton church network called FOCUS. Good worship, good teaching. Got a prophetic word prayed for me that I'll write about some other time. But every night starting at 10, they have this thing called Out Of Focus, which is basically like a club, with alcohol and dancing. This is at a Christian retreat! Southern Baptists would have a heart attack. I never quite figured out if Out Of Focus is an indirect reference to beer goggles. I don't think so, but I wouldn't be surprised. But yeah, alcohol is simply no big deal here.
Because it's so ingrained in the church culture here, my attitude and behaviour toward drinking has changed as well. Even Jieun is drinking more now than she ever has. Neither of us to excess; quite moderately, actually. But the attitude has changed a lot.
I wrote years ago about how and why I hate California politics. I've been pleasantly surprised at how some things have improved since then, partly because of one of the things I really supported - redistricting by an independent body. As this New York Times piece discusses, it's been a wild success. The Democrats have gained more power (as is to be expected based on the demographics of the state). But interestingly, everyone has become more moderate - even the Democrat majority, who has been far more friendly to business interests than in the past. In general, there's more bipartisanship and things are getting done. It seems a win-win - liberals get more seats, but conservatives have more of their concerns actually addressed. Exactly what I hoped would happen.
I despise talking about politics nowadays, especially on Facebook. Mostly because I've come to believe there's no point. Everyone seems to have already made up their minds about everything and there's something about Facebook (or maybe just the Internet in general) that facilitates people only paying attention to evidence that supports what they already believe. Newsflash to Facebook political posters: you will not convince anyone to your side on Facebook. At best, you'll preach to the choir while pissing off everyone else. In reality, I think it's self-indulgent, primarily about saying how right you are more than anything else. Much like these Short Thoughts.
I think a lot about whether it's always been this way, that people have always generally been crystallized into thinking what they already think, or whether it's just my peers are getting older and we become more hardened in our thoughts as we age, or whether there is something different about our time. A part of me does think the Internet's changed things. There have always been conspiracy theorists out there, but in the past it required a ton of work to find evidence to support a kooky point of view. Now, it's immediately accessible. So take any crazy thought and with a quick Google search and you'll find reason to believe it. That makes it really easy to reinforce that you're right, and you can always point to that evidence no matter how much contrary information you might encounter.
I posted this link about why most political arguments fail, and mentioned before how I took Ariely's Coursera course on Irrational Behavior, and based on those I've come to believe there are 2 other reasons why people don't change their minds, especially in regards to politics. First, behaviourally, people always try to maintain a positive self-image, and as the article points out, most political arguments try to attack that, and that will not work. I saw this happen on Facebook recently over an argument in regards to abortion. Someone said something, someone said something else about how it's a nuanced and complicated issue, then the other replied with that makes sense if you're OK with the murder of millions, and the other was offended. The whole problem with the abortion debate is that pro-choicers don't see abortion as murder. If you insist that it is, if that's your debate tack, all you do is say that the other side are monsters, and no one believes that about themselves - it's not even true. Whether abortion = murder is true or not, it's a wholly ineffective argument in terms of swaying the opposing side. So many political arguments are like that. To flip the script, Democrats say that Republicans effectively hate the poor. Again, regardless of whether Republican policies do hurt the poor, this argument just will not work, because it implies that their motivations are hateful, and I honestly don't believe that to be true, nor do Republicans themselves, so it's a lost argument. So because of how political arguments are framed, it's all lost on the other side and pointless.
The other thing is that people seek (and largely succeed) to maintain consistency in their beliefs, and they see consistency as a sign of correctness. The problem is, I philosophically believe this to be untrue. Even after many years, I don't fully understand Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, but the gist of them is that even if you take something as basic and unambiguous as arithmetic, any system that expresses it cannot be both consistent and complete. Meaning, a system that's purely consistent can't fully capture arithmetic. A system that fully expresses arithmetic must contain something in the system that's true but not provable. You can't have both consistency and completeness. It's a proven result.
And this is just in regards to arithmetic. I personally believe that it's just as true when it comes to thought and language. Consistency is good, but overrated, in that you can't have a complete philosophical system without inconsistencies, and if you have a completely consistent worldview, it doesn't fully capture life. Philosophers back to Socrates (probably earlier) devoted their time to logical problems without presenting solutions. That makes sense to me. Just living life means living contradictions. We can't eliminate them, we just have to live with them.
Few people believe this though, and instinctively seek to maintain consistency in thought. And that's another reason I think political debate is useless. Much of it attacks the consistency of the other view. And since most people think consistency is necessary for truth, when challenged they'd rather reject the argument than reconsider their own consistency. When I see public figures go at it (e.g. Paul Krugman vs Niall Ferguson) that's exactly what I see - each has a fully consistent (and fully opposed) worldview, each attacks the consistency of the other's worldview, and each rejects the others arguments precisely because it attacks their consistency. End result: pointless.
So debating politics is pointless. The only time anything actually happens, in my opinion, is when people haven't formed a viewpoint yet, or when they're actively seeking pure information as opposed to opinions. The young and the curious. That's about it.
It's sad, but I honestly feel this cynicism has affected how I see evangelism. In my head, I feel like trying to convince others is pointless. I do think that's partly true. We can't convince others to faith with arguments, especially the older people get. People are changed by actions in love and the Holy Spirit. That's it.
This Slate story about the repulsive behaviors of "cute" animals is fascinating and disgusting. Animals are... animals.
This gets to one of my beliefs about morality that I feel most people don't think about: what is natural has nothing to do with what is good. People increasingly believe that if behaviour has a scientifically explained, genetically induced cause, then it must be OK. The thought being, if you're made that way, if you "can't help it", it can't be wrong.
I don't believe that to be true. If we took our cues of morality from what's natural, we'd have a terrible world. So when we talk about what's behaviourally right and wrong, whether it's natural has little to do with it.
Drew resolved to write more frequently; I'd like to do so also even if it's brief and not that heavy. Some quick thoughts about Austria:
- Wow do Austrians smoke a lot. Londoners smoke a lot too. And according to Wikipedia South Korea consumes more cigarettes per capita. But it felt worse to me in Austria than anywhere else I've been. And I hate smoke, so it was off-putting.
- Not a friendly people, either, outside the tour guides and hotel staff. Even our Sound of Music tour guide, I would describe her as sarcastic and jaded.
- The country is incredibly clean, save for one huge exception - lots of graffiti everywhere. Kind of a weird juxtaposition.
- Reminded me a lot of Paris (partly because of the graffiti). Same old buildings, same cafe culture, same cultural emphasis on art, except Paris is more about visual arts and Vienna about music.
- In both places we stayed, the master bed had separate comforters. So a queen size bed, but 2 twin comforters on top. Odd. Makes cuddling more difficult.
I had the most fascinating talk with my coworkers (British and French) the other day around the influence of American TV and movies. It started as we talked about Halloween. That's not a holiday that's historically been celebrated in Europe, but it is more and more (we got trick-or-treaters in our neighborhood last year), and in my coworkers' estimation, it's because of the influence of US TV shows. So many TV shows have Halloween episodes, and people here have started mimicking it since US TV is so popular.
It's not just Halloween; there are a bunch of events that are big in the US that aren't here, but are becoming big again because of how they're depicted in American shows and movies. These include wedding proposals (not a big deal here), weddings (not nearly as formal, ceremonial, or elaborate), bridal showers, bachelor parties, baby showers, high school proms. All of those things are not a deal here, but they're growing in popularity here as they mimic what they see on TV. Even something as small as getting on one's knee to propose - that's a formality that isn't done here, but people are starting to. That's fascinating.
So the interesting part of the conversation was that they assumed that what Europeans mimic isn't accurate US culture. It's what they see on TV, and they assumed that it's skewed and stereotypical, not real. But as we talked, I realized that some of what they assumed to be unreal is actually fairly accurate. For example, they assumed that all US TV shows and movies about high school are wildly hyperbolic, especially how cliquish and divided they are. That blew my mind, because that's actually the aspect of high school that pretty much everyone in the US identifies with. Maybe not the same types of cliques. But that high school is deeply cliquish, I mean, I thought that was universal. But my coworkers found that stunning. And I in turn find it stunning that anyone could find that stunning.
I'm still thinking about this. I can't even conceive of how high school, with a bunch of adolescents, could not be as divided into groups as it is. Isn't that completely natural, though regrettable? But apparently it's not. Apparently in the UK, while there are interest groups, on the whole, people feel unified as a class. And my British coworker is Indian so it's not that he's naive about race or class. But his experience was such that he finds watching American TV shows about high school, with their sharply defined groups, bizarre. My French coworker also. And I can't figure out why that doesn't happen here, or what it is about American society that makes it that way. Is the emphasis on sports? Race? Money? I really don't know, because I never thought it required a cause before.
I'm still thinking about this a lot. There are parts of your upbringing that you fully realize is culturally influenced, and I could have predicted that. But what amazes me is when I realize that some things I just assumed to be universal, like the fact that kids of high school age will separate into strongly divided cliques, is also a cultural artifact. Mind-blowing. That's happened a decent amount in regards to what matters with faith also, but that's for another time.
This manifesto, trollingly subtitled "Only bad people send their kids to private school" is making the rounds on Facebook. I largely agree in principle, though its uncompromising position is wrong, and I hesitate to be so universally judgmental. Like, many (most?) missionaries send their kids to "private" schools. These are people who have made many sacrifices for a greater good. Are they really bad people for sending their kids to private schools? To say that lacks understanding. And there are less extreme situations where I think it's also applicable.
Anyway, forget the article, wanted to write about the school system here. We knew virtually nothing about it before we came, and to be honest, still know very little. We were forced to go private since we found out we're moving after school registrations had closed. (SN - the terminology is super confusing. "Public" schools here are actually private, perhaps the most private of schools, catering to the elites. State schools are the equivalent of US public schools. I get confused all the time. I'll keep using "public" even though it should be "state".) And so we've sidestepped a lot of the public school issues.
But we had a long talk with a friend from Abby's school about how education works and it's fascinating. The mother is from Spain and was always educated in public schools, and really wants to send her daughter to public schools also, as she values the diversity of experience. However, being in London, she feels like she's forced to go private. Reason being, in their estimation, all the public schools are poor. And the reasons why are interesting.
So in London, they don't put social housing (projects) in specific places in town - they're spread out all over. So even in the nicest neighborhoods, you'll have social housing somewhat close by. I thought that was great - I've long disliked the separation of ghettos and poor neighborhoods in general in the States, and have long thought that if affordable housing were not grouped together but distributed in pockets of nicer places, it would be better for everybody.
However, what happens is that only the social housing people attend public schools. The reason being, many of them don't speak English as their primary language. It's nuts how cosmopolitan (SN - when people here use "cosmopolitan", they just mean diverse. To them, London is a cosmopolitan city in the sense that there are many, many different ethnicities) London is. Even the least diverse schools have kosher and halal options. But the effect in public schools is greater, not just affecting culture but language. And so if parents send their kids to public schools, their kids will be in a system where many (possibly most) of the kids don't speak English and much of classroom time will be devoted to that. Many parents don't feel like they can do that. So only the poor send their kids to public schools, and they're dominated by non-English speakers, and everyone that can afford it sends their kid to private schools. You don't have the US effect where there are great public schools that the rich people try to move to. Because of distributed social housing, it's a clean divide where all the rich go private.
I don't know how true this is - I suspect it's not fully, because we did a tiny bit of research and I do know there are public schools that are considered good, and people try to get into the right school district areas (catchments). But I do think there's some truth to it, because the father was raised here and he knows the system, and the mother's despair at not being able to send her daughter to public school feels real. She even mentioned moving back to Spain to be able to do that.
Anyway, I thought this was fascinating because again, I had long thought if we basically moved poor people among rich neighborhoods, that would solve some of the school disparity issues in the US. But now I don't know; it may well be that as in London (if it's true), the rich people will just all send their kids to private schools and we'll get the same disparities. There are no easy solutions.
In all honesty, there have been many difficulties with being in London, especially for the family. The weather is rubbish. It's crowded. We didn't know a ton of people before we got here, so we lost all sense of community and place. It's really difficult to get around with the kids. Buying a car has done wonders in this regard, but it's still not easy, especially compared to the States where you just pop everyone in a car. Just getting things done - partly because of unfamiliarity, partly because of the city life, partly because of the culture - is hard. We have a new thing where, when we're frustrated by things here, we raise a fist to the sky and yell "London!" Add to that the additional responsibilities I have at work related to being a site-builder and the additional responsibilities those entail, as well as personal issues going on, and it has not been easy on the family.
I've gone through stuff myself also, most notably repeated health issues. I already wrote about losing hearing in my left ear. I've also been struggling with a painful pinched nerve for the past month. It shoots from my neck all the way down my left arm. It was borderline unbearable for a few weeks; slowly getting better but it's still a bother. The kids nightly prayers' for me are fairly pathetic - please help Daddy's ear, neck, shoulders, back, and arm to get better.
And yet, despite all that, I like it here, and I personally would like to stay here longer. And some people don't understand that. But here's why. There are 3 things I really value in life, that are huge determinants in my happiness. Those are: a good church life, doing things, and having new experiences. And we're getting all those things here. I really enjoy the church we're at; it's a separate story in itself, but it feels alive, and as we get more involved, it feels more and more like a missional community where something is happening, and we jive with the worship style, teaching, and culture. I value that. In terms of doing things, even in California, I much prefer going out and doing things with the kids than lounging around at home. And there are endless things to do, kid-centric and not, in London. And I have new experiences virtually every day. So I like it here. Quite a bit.
Last Saturday kind of symbolized all that's great about London. It was a sunny day, and the kids went with a school friend to the HMS Belfast. Us fathers joined them for lunch at a Tapas place (the mother is native Spanish). The continental food is pretty good here, and we had a good, long conversation with people we would never come into contact with in Cupertino. Afterwards we walked through Regent's Park, getting an ice cream there on the way and passing over the zoo before we went home. That there's good food and amazing parks with interesting people all in such close proximity - it's pretty incredible. I can't think of another city where that's even possible. When it's sunny, London is just about the best place in the world.
Interesting story about a scientist who wants to become immortal by preserving the neural network in his brain so that hundreds of years later, it can be uploaded to a machine. Most scientists think he's a crockpot. I think he's misguided, but not for scientific reasons, but philosophic ones, as I don't think he's thought through issues of personal identity enough.
Minor boast: I got an A+ in a Philosophy class at Stanford - I think it's one of my proudest accomplishments because it's in a domain so far removed from what I'm best at. (Minor non-boast: I got an F in a Computer Science at Stanford too, in the concentration I focused on (AI).) And the paper that put me over the top was on personal identity, which isn't to say that I'm an expert in it, just that I find it really interesting. And I've written about it before, so I won't go over it again. But the thing is, in philosophy (at least 15 years ago), it's commonly accepted that the mind is just an encoded algorithm. It happens to be encoded via neurons, but there's no reason why it couldn't theoretically be equivalently encoded in silicon, as a machine. So the idea that a mind could theoretically be uploaded to a machine wouldn't be laughed at in philosophy at all. It's the mainstream view.
Two things are more interesting though. One is the issue of consciousness. Because how you get from an algorithm to consciousness is not at all clear. It doesn't make logical sense that the algorithm itself is conscious. What makes the most sense is that the running of the algorithm is the cause of consciousness. So if you ran a "mind" program, it's conscious; as long as you pause it, it's not conscious. Same with an actual mind - if the neurons of the brain work, there is consciousness; if the running pauses, there is no consciousness. And that led to one of my favorite ideas in philosophy. Because an algorithm can be encoded in neurons, it can be encoded in silicon, but it can also be encoded in paper. That is, you can explicitly write down the instructions of an algorithm on paper. It might be a huge book, but it's theoretically possible. And if that's an algorithm, when someone "runs" it, e.g. by reading through that book, while it's being read, there's consciousness in the book. Wild.
Anyway, what that mind-uploaded scientist guy gets wrong is that he doesn't think about what it means to be the same "person", and that's where his quest for immortality is flawed. Because if his mind gets uploaded to a machine, he's not the same person - he's a copy of a different person with the same memories. Because he's severed continuity, and continuity is the key to identity. Meaning, the substance of our bodies is supposedly completely new every 7 years as cells die and are formed via the food we eat, but just because we're physically completely different "stuff" than 7 years ago, we're the same body because there's a continuity of substance. Same with the mind - we're the same person because of continuity of memory. Sever that - like if a person suffers radical amnesia - and intuitively we think of them as a different "person". So continuity is everything.
And because uploading a mind doesn't maintain continuity, it wouldn't be making that same "person" immortal; it would be making a copy of that person immortal. Otherwise you'd run into logical impossibilities if you, for example, made a copy of that mind and uploaded it to two different machines. They're now separate "persons". You can't really say one is the real one and one is fake. The truth is, they're both new persons, copies of one that came before, but neither is the same person as the previous one. So that mind uploader guy may make someone immortal, but it won't be him"self".
Didn't love The Prestige but I loved this idea in the movie (spoilers). There's a line in the end where he says how hard the trick is, knowing that he will die every single time. It's kind of an odd line, because "he" doesn't die. At least, the one who survives isn't the one who experiences death, so it's kind of confusing that that he would think about it that way. And yet, he really does die; in my philosophical opinion, the real person dies every night, since he has physical continuity with the person that came before. The one who lives is a copy of the prior.
Doubt anyone understood this. Doubt even more than anyone cared.
If you want your head to spin, read the Wikipedia entry on UK phone numbers. It explains why there's so much variation in formatting. It's bewildering, and I'm certain that when I tell my phone number, I confuse people in how I break it up.
Have I written about this before? I think I have. But it's crazy to me how many accents there are in the UK. It's actually caused me to be unable to distinguish accents I could hear before. Like, I could tell Scottish vs. Irish before. Now, because I hear so many different varieties, I can't tell anymore. Like a Leeds accent, or a Manchester accent. Since the buckets aren't as clearly isolated as they were for me before (on film or TV), it's harder for me to distinguish them.
It's crazy how many varieties there are in London alone, distinguished by both location and socioeconomic status. I.e. there's a fairly distinct East London accent. There's also a distinct "posh" accent. And they're all jumbled together. So natives, when talking to a Londoner, can kind of tell both where they're from in London and their class. It's crazy.
I'm terrible at consoling women. The other day Abby was crying about something or other (I think missing America) and I kept asking her questions, trying to understand and console her, but my questions just made it worse, until Jieun finally and firmly told me: "Stop talking to her." Pretty much the same thing happens when I talk to Jieun when she's upset also. I only make things worse.
I think I've written about this before also, but one reason why I'm completely against the conservative position on health care, that it should be driven by market forces, is that the free market can't work in health care because there's no information and it's essentially driven by cartels. No information meaning, there's no real data on which hospitals are better than others. In the absence of that, people rely on rules of thumb that are only superficially related to quality, like how long it takes to get an appointment. But from what I've seen in people I know, another rule of thumb is price. At work, you can go with a Kaiser HMO or more expensive PPO plans. People frequently choose the PPO because it's more expensive. The rationale being, if it's more expensive, it must be better. And sure, why not assume that, since there's no other data? I rant about this frequently because when researchers talk about effective health care, Kaiser always comes up as an excellent model. But people either don't know or don't care about that. They go with what's more expensive because expensive must be better. That's a free-market failure.
In any case, it heartens me that they're starting to publish more data. For example, they're starting to publish data on billing rates, how much hospitals charge for the exact same things. That's useful. They recently started publishing data on death rates for the exact same procedures. Also useful.
Interesting TED talk on texting. Main points: written language is different than conversational language (and evolutionary extremely recent). 100 years ago, public speaking meant talking like writing, which sounds weird, and has changed. And texting is more like conversation than writing.
For no particular reason, I decided to take Dan Ariely's Coursera class on Irrational Behavior, reading, quizzes and all. Highly recommended, at least the lectures, because it's fascinating. Humans are so odd and inconsistent in their behavior. One interesting phenomena is disgust. People find chocolates in the shape of dog poop disgusting and will not eat it, even though there's inherently nothing disgusting about it. In studies, if you put wrapped snacks next to a wrapped tampon, never opened, never touching, people will find the snacks less appealing, just by proximity. But it's all in the mind.
That reminded me of something I've never understood, why it's OK for girls to wear guys' clothes, but it's not OK for guys to wear girls' (unisex) clothes. Jieun has commandeered one of my (favorite) Facebook hoodies. And that's totally acceptable. But once in college, I wore her oversized unisex iconic Jieun UCSD sweatshirt, and everyone found it gross. Why? It's not like I was wearing a bra. Wasn't a girly fit, or even a girly piece of clothing at all. Still, everyone thought it was gross. Why? Is it just that guys smell more than girls (i.e. Serra 1st floor vs. Serra 2nd floor) so the idea of a guy stinking up a girl's sweatshirt is disgusting? I don't fully get it.
Back to that Irrational Behavior class. I think the single most interesting guest lecture was Eli Finkel on The Delusion of Romantic Self-Insight. His first lesson is that if you ask people what they want (in this case for a romantic partner), it's really different from how they actually behave. I think I first learned this at the best work offsite I ever went to (at Yahoo!) when we visited IDEO. We learned the same thing there, that asking people what they want is at best useless and at worst counterproductive, because people frequently don't know so can't verbalize it, or what they think they want is not what they really want (as revealed in behavior). So instead of doing conversational focus groups (of which I've become deeply skeptical), they would just go out and watch people, and their design was based on that.
One of their examples was looking at pizza cutters. When they watched people using them, they observed a few things, among them that the design of most pizza cutters made the angle of cutting a pizza awkward and difficult to get leverage on (you want to press down, but you're forced to hold it at an angle), and the connection between the metal and wood, particularly the loop that connected the wheel to the handle, was difficult to clean. Based on that, they designed (for Zyliss) a pizza cutter that you can press down fully with your palm, and which fully disassembles for cleaning. I was so compelled that I immediately went out and bought that pizza cutter and we still use it.
Anyway yeah, so people don't know what they want, even when they think they do. So Finkel found that when asking men and women about what they want in a romantic partner, men say they value physical attractiveness more than women, and women say they value earning potential more than men. And this is conventional wisdom - men care more about looks, women care more about being taken care of. But when they did some studies, and even did a meta-analysis on a ton of other dating studies, they found that these self-stated preferences were not accurate. Turns out in reality, men and women value things more or less equally, and physical attractiveness matters most. There was even no correlation between how strongly people said they care or don't care about physical attractiveness (independent of gender) and how much it actually mattered.
That was fascinating to me. Women are wrong about what they say they care about in a romantic partner, and in practice, they care about physical attractiveness just as much as men. It's a wonder I ever got married.
My travel in the past 6 weeks: STN -> NCE -> GTW, GTW -> BCN -> GTW, LHR -> LAX -> SFO -> SEA -> SFO -> LHR, LHR -> IAH -> LHR. I'm completely exhausted.
I hate it when I need to fart on a plane. It feels rude to do it in a packed place next to people I don't know. But when I try to go to the toilet to do it, for some reason, the shifting of body position makes it so that I don't need to anymore. I'd have to wait 5-10 minutes to get the fart back, but occupying one of the few toilets to do that seems also rude. I usually end up holding it, which according to Eddie is unhealthy, but that's what I do. I kind of suspect that it slips out when I'm asleep, but at least then I'm not conscious to be embarrassed. And I don't know whether it's airplane food, the low air pressure in the cabin or what, but I almost always get gas on a plane, while I rarely do in grounded life. It's annoying.