I very much enjoyed this article in the latest Christianity Today for several reasons. One, it's just an interesting idea - living out the book of Leviticus for 30 days.
Two, I liked the inspiration behind it, that more is learned by doing than by passive listening. Plus, I get a kick out of the fact that it's inspired by A.J. Jacobs' latest book. Since I'm a Jacobs fan. Not as much as Henry, and not enough to buy it hardcover, but still a fan.
Three, I love how they used a Facebook group vitally for its duration and afterwards. Even since before I joined, it's been my hope that Facebook can be used as a ministry tool. It's definitely influenced what I've chosen to work on here. So it's personally gratifying and encouraging to read in CT how it was used for that. Plus I probably fixed some of their bugs and they didn't even know it.
It's a great feeling when something you work on is used by a lot of people. And it's a greater feeling when something you work on is used for good.
Freakonomics recently had a Q&A with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, and I couldn't believe how much I agreed with him. I almost violently agreed, if that's possible. Some snippets:
But don’t get an M.B.A.! We have too many M.B.A.’s as it is, and they’re killing the economy!Yes.
Republicans have been very good and very disciplined at framing policies in ways that average Americans find attractive. Democrats aren’t disciplined at anything; that’s why they’re Democrats.Coming from a Democrat. And it's true.
Q: What do you believe would really happen, if in a growing economy (such as the one we had under President Clinton), we left the rate be, and allowed the economy to grow large enough for say, 99 percent employment?This is one thing that bugged me about Dave, a movie I generally loved. But a central plot point is his jobs bill that promises to give a job to everyone in the country who wants one. I know barely any economics but even I know enough that that makes no sense. There has to be some unemployment so that we don't have runaway inflation. Maybe that sounds cold, but that's economics.A: We’d have inflation.
Q: Do you think that corporations should still hold a status similar to citizenship, but in a diminished form? If so, what would that form look like?Amen. I know nothing about law, but the concept of corporations being legal persons afforded certain constitutional rights like people is dumbfounding to me.A: As I’ve argued in my latest book, Supercapitalism, corporations are not citizens and should not be treated as such. They’re contracts, pieces of paper. Hence, there should not be corporate criminal liability; corporations shouldn’t pay income taxes; corporations should have no right to sue the federal government; corporations should have no constitutional rights.
The most important thing we can do to reduce global poverty is to end agricultural price supports and eliminate tariffs and quotas on agricultural commodities coming into the U.S. These make it difficult if not impossible for developing nations’ farmers to sell their produce on world markets. They also raise food prices for U.S. consumers, and drain the Treasury of money needed for other purposes.I could not agree more. Every time I think about our farm subsidy system I get angry.
Q: Is a liberal arts education a worthwhile investment? Does it have value in today’s labor market, or is it an outdated concept?That gets at a beef of mine, that education is viewed solely as an economic investment. That's, if not poisonous, at least a way-too narrow way of looking at education.A: The purpose of a liberal arts education isn’t just to make more money (four-year college grads have lifetime earnings that are about twice that of the typical high-school grad without any college) but also to be able to have a fuller life and be a more engaged and responsible citizen. So yes, without a doubt, it’s a worthwhile investment.
Economists tend to believe that economic efficiency and economic growth are the two most important values. Therefore, any policies that reduce the incentive to work hard are suspect. (Economists worry, for example, that a higher Earned Income Tax Credit for low-wage workers may discourage them from working harder, since wage increases would lead to correspondingly larger declines in the E.I.T.C. wage subsidy.)Man, that last sentence is so true and something so many people don't consider correctly. The point isn't to grow the economy. The point is to grow the economy to better peoples' lives. The latter is the most important thing.This strikes me as wrong-headed. The economy exists to make our lives better; we do not exist to make the economy better.
Anyway, I really agree with how he thinks things through. Robert Reich - another person I'm a fan of.
It's fascinating to me how a child's mind works. So Abby now associates any large number of things with ten. If there are ever lots of things together, when you ask her how many there are, she says ten. But she also knows how to count. Today as she was climbing some steps, I noticed her counting along as she stepped. And when she got to nine, she repeated nine a few times, so that on the last step she could say "ten". Another time, after she got to nine, she went back to a random number. She did this a few times, again so that when she got to the last step, she could say "ten". It's fascinating that that's how she reconciles her counting and understanding of ten.
Another weird thing: Jieun has managed to teach her to count to ten in English, Korean, and Spanish. The odd thing is, in every one of those languages, she consistently skips six. How does that happen? We can't explain it.
So lately I've been reconsidering the point of accountability. I'd say my previous view was, it's a fallacy to believe that we can conquer sin on our own; we are intended to live out our faith in community. Accountability acknowledges that social aspect, that we can only grow through community. So we have accountability to spur each other on to holiness, as iron sharpens iron.
What I do think that's important, what I'm reconsidering is whether that's the point. I read this article about Pope Benedict XVI where he answers a child's question on why the Church insists on regular confession:
It's very helpful to confess with a certain regularity. It is true: our sins are always the same, but we clean our homes, our rooms, at least once a week, even if the dirt is always the same... Otherwise the dirt might not be seen, but it builds up. Something similar can be said about the soul, about me: if I never go to confession, my soul is neglected and in the end I'm always pleased with myself and no longer understand that I must work hard to improve..."
I've been chewing on that for a while. Even though Protestants believe in grace, I think a lot of times we still approach Christianity with a self-help mentality. Especially so with accountability, which can be viewed as a way to get "better".
I'm thinking now that the greater purpose of accountability is just to keep us aware of our sin, that we might be reminded to lean on God more. In the process we become more like Jesus. But it's more important that we be aware of our sin. That suggests that the honesty aspect of accountability is much more important than actually overcoming our sin. It might be disheartening to struggle with the same sins every single week. But that's kind of the point. We need to be reminded of that, so that we are reminded that we need Jesus.
I'm not fully settled on that, but that's my current theory. So I'm taking the approach now that the most important part of accountability is not overcoming my sin but being aware of it.
Speaking of the current Pope, he gets a lot of criticism; this article in Newsweek is typical. But personally, I really love him. Partly because he really loves children and gives great answers to their questions like the one above. But for other reasons as well.
For one, I really respect how he takes a stand for truth. I don't jive with Catholic theology, but I respect that he's been so vocal about there being just one truth and defending that. I went to a Jesuit high school, and was shocked at how liberal the theology there was. They taught relativism in religious studies, literally saying that there are many paths to truth, and that Jesus is but one way. In a Catholic religious studies class. For the life of me, I can't understand why someone who honestly believed this would ever become a priest; I can't even understand why they would be a Catholic. Relativism has been infecting Catholicism, and even religion in general, and it's refreshing to see the Pope taking a stand against it.
I also respect how he's bold in challenging radical Islam. He got a lot of flak for that speech in '06 where he criticized some Muslims belief that it is acceptable to convert others by force. I respect it. And since that controversy, he's gotten dialogue going with more reform-minded Muslim leaders. It's uncouth nowadays to show "disrespect" to other groups, but to not speak out against violence is just cowardly, not respectful. There is a right and wrong, and people need to worry more about doing right than about being non-offensive.
So yeah, Pope Benedict XVI. Big fan.
I totally resonate with Sangsoo's entry. The tension between career and family. When I was younger, I naively believed that I should never do anything solely for money. And I still strongly believe that. The difference is, I'm not naive about it anymore; the consequences are more real, and they involve other people, people I care deeply about. And that makes it exponentially more difficult to not make money a big consideration in decision making.
The problem with life is, it costs money. And when you're the primary bread-winner for the family, you feel all this implicit pressure to make more. Don't get me wrong, in the grand scheme of things, by any objective standard, I'm doing well. And to be clear, Jieun has never ever pressured me to make more money, or made demands that would require us to need more. But she doesn't have to. It's all implicit (well, mostly. With the extended family... let's just say there's also a tension between being Korean and being Christian that isn't always well resolved), both socially and maybe even self-imposed. And it all stems from wanting to provide more for the family, to give Jieun and Abby stuff they need and want. Maybe some help at home. Or educational / recreational opportunities for Abby. Stuff that would be good for the family. Stuff that invariably costs money. Money we don't really have.
The tension exists in that, to make more at work, to progress further, I would have to take time away from the family. At every company I've been at, the superstar engineers work like crazy. And that's a sacrifice I'm simply not willing to make. But that naturally caps my earning potential. And it still isn't enough to avoid the tension. Even with the hours I work now, which I feel is just keeping up, though she never says it, I think Jieun would rather me be at home more. To be home more and maximally provide for the family - it's an impossible situation. That Jieun doesn't complain about either - things she wants or me being at home more - helps, but it's still fundamentally an impossible situation.
The ideal is to have a job that pays really well and is not a lot of hours. And that's great if you can get it. But that's not what God has for me. In my weaker moments, I think I should have gone to med school, law school, or business school, now that I know the salaries involved. I have to remind myself: 1) I hate law 2) I hate business 3) I did the pre-med thing, and was much happier doing computer science. I am where I am for a reason, and I need to be content with that and trust it.
But I still can't help but be sad sometimes that I don't provide more for Jieun and Abby. Better housing. Furnishings. Food. Education. Play. Just a better life in general, things that, even if they don't ask for them, they would invariably enjoy and thrive with. How to get that without hurting the family in the process, I don't know if that's possible.
I do think the struggle is good though. I've been convicted in recent months how the process is much more important than the goal. How we get there is what forms our character, not where we end up, so when we get things too easily, we lose out on the character forming process. So in a meta sense, I'm glad for the struggle. And in the end, I have to just trust in God. Draw a line regarding how much I'm willing to work, do my best under it, and trust God with the rest. And that's relatively easy for me to do on my own. But forcing my family to have to trust in God, leaving them no options otherwise... it's likely good for them but difficult nonetheless. Every father wants to give his family what they want. But when some of those things are at odds - namely, time with family and providing well for family - I haven't figured out how that works.
Updated Yogurt rankings:
1st place (tie): Pinkberry - Cafe Aroma - Berripop - froyo? - Yogurtland - yogun fruz
7th place: Red Mango
Yeah, they're still all mostly the same to me. However, Red Mango is noticeably creamier. Arthur and I talked about it and we both agree - that makes us like it less. I find that extremely odd. Shouldn't creaminess be a positive? Have we somehow been primed to actually prefer icier frozen yogurt? How odd.
yogun fruz is some apparently Canada-based chain that opened up in the Embarcadero Center. According to this Facebook group, Paris Hilton now prefers it to Pinkberry. Haven't tried Tartini, that place in the Cupertino Town Center, yet.
Actually, I do think Yogurtland is my favorite - it's where Jieun and I go the most nowadays. And it's always crazy packed so we're clearly not alone. I think it's the freedom I like. A dozen flavors (although we invariably get regular tart and the rotating fruity tart flavor), being able to get whatever toppings we want with no limit so we can make it to our exact specifications. It's brilliant.
I still go to TapEx from time to time, as I love their mango yogurt drink. (You really should try it.) But it's virtually deserted. Guess the boba craze has passed. Wonder what will come next after this yogurt thing.
You know a random thing I find fascinating. How colds have qualities. You know, sometimes the family will all catch a cold that involves a prolonged cough. Sometimes a terrible sore throat. They're just viruses, right? And colds are our immune responses to them. How is it that the structure of a virus can elicit the same, specific physical response in different people? The other night, Abby had a fever close to 102. But she wasn't irritable at all; she was acting completely normal except for the weird high fever. The next morning, she's totally fine, no symptoms whatsoever. Turns out Katie had the exact same thing, super high fever with no other symptoms, the night before Abby went over for a play date. Next day, like Abby, totally fine. I dunno, maybe that's not so fascinating, but I don't get how it works.
I also find it amusing how us parents find our own kids much cuter than everyone else does. This isn't a bad thing. The alternative would be terrible. Parents had better find their own kids cuter than everyone else does. But the logical consequence is, their kids aren't as cute to other people as they are to them.
I've told this anecdote before, but for a brief period, my dad preached in the English service at our old church. One Sunday, after the service, everyone rushed up to me; apparently he had told an anecdote about how, when I was born, he thought I was the cutest baby in the entire world. Years later, when he looked at those pictures, he realized, wow, I was ugly. I don't think that's exactly what he meant, but those were his words, and yeah, for some reason people were really excited to tell me how my dad thought I was an ugly baby. The only other time I can remember my dad eliciting such a strong response in an English sermon was when he referred to the butt by its alternative, OK-to-use-in-church-to-reference-an-animal-not-OK-for-a-body-part name.
Point is, in the moment, parents are biased about their own kids' cuteness. We try not to say stuff publicly, but in private, Jieun and I say to each other all the time how Abby is the cutest girl in the world. Objectively, she's (probably) not. But I don't think parents can help themselves. My sister wrote an entry supposedly about how annoying her kids nonstop talking is and ended up essentially bragging about how cute they are. Parents can't help it. And it's not that our kids aren't cute. They're just not as cute as we think they are.
Another example of financial prescience, bad timing: I was convinced of the inevitability of inflation a few years ago, and moved our non-retirement bond holdings into TIPS (essentially inflation protected bonds) in May '05. TIPS are considered extremely conservative, and offer a lower rate of return than pretty much all other bonds, but I was sure that the inflation-indexed aspect would cause it to outperform.
Instead, it consistently lagged behind all other bond funds, sometimes even underperforming our money market fund. I wasn't losing anything, but I was missing out. The last straw was in Dec. '06, when it didn't even issue a quarterly dividend, which almost never happens. A month later, tired of its terrible performance, I exchanged our holdings into a different (GSE-free) bond fund.
Oops. The inflation index on which it was based started ticking up soon after. As of today, the one year returns on that same TIPS fund is 15.41%, which is crazy for something that's essentially no-risk. I had the right idea. Just bad timing.
The problem I think is that the inflation index doesn't include what was the primary conduit of inflation at the time - housing prices. It used rental prices instead, which were largely flat, while housing prices were going through the roof (a discrepancy that's a huge warning sign). So the indexes didn't reflect what was going on. It was reflected in precious metals, but that sector is highly speculative, so it's not a pure inflation hedge, and I was hesitant at the time to go there. I still wouldn't put our main savings there, but with my playground account, I've been long Kinross gold for a while and that's one move that's paid off.
Only Jibin read this.
Preface: as I frequently say, I took zero econ classes in college. So this may be completely ignorant.
No one cares, but all of our retirement savings are in index funds, and all of our other savings are in short term bonds and money market accounts, since we're still (maybe vainly) hoping to use it relatively soon. I have a tiny little bit in an eTrade account I've had since before we were married that I never replenish, it's kind of to play around with.
In late 2005, I took a short position on Fannie Mae when it was at $47. I did the analysis, and what they were doing made no sense; they were basically lending to anyone. It was only sustainable if housing prices kept going up. If they dropped, everything would collapse. For conforming loans, the banks were just middle men, and it made sense that Fannie Mae would bear the brunt of the pain from defaults. I guessed then that housing prices would be dropping soon, so I shorted them.
My timing was way off. Their stock price didn't drop at all, it kept going up and up and up (along with housing prices in general), for years. I finally got sick of it last summer and covered my position when it was at $64, just to be done with it. I still knew it was going to fall eventually, but I was tired of waiting, and wanted to use. Whoops. Shortly thereafter, the housing bubble peaked, and FNM's share price started it's crazy descent until, as of now, it's at around $10.
The lesson: when you're an amateur (like I am), don't mess around with timing markets. Especially when it comes to shorting stocks. My reasoning was absolutely sound, but that doesn't matter. Leave timing to the experts.
But my reasoning was sound, and to be honest, this whole Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac things upsets me. I'm not a financial whiz; I don't spend enough time reading about it, and I frankly don't really care enough. But smart people were criticizing them long ago. Like read this CNN article from 2005, where Greenspan harshly criticizes their business practices. That article is worth reading because everything Greenspan said is basically happening now. The writing was on the wall long ago. (SN for the zero people who are still reading - I did some research and found that the majority of bond funds, especially conservative ones, are dominated by GSE-backed bonds. I've been so bearish on them for so long that I moved all of the retirement savings we have in bonds to GSE-free ones long ago.)
What gets my goat is, they long chafed against government regulation of their practices, partly with the claim that "its financial prospectuses 'clearly state that the U.S. government does not back the company's debt instruments.'" Except that everyone had the implicit understanding that if they did fail, the government would bail them out. And that's pretty much what's going to happen.
That's what gets me. If they don't want to be regulated, fine, as long as when they fail, they only hurt themselves. But I'm going to be affected as a taxpayer when they get bailed out, and that sucks. Furthermore, they built up their portfolios so large that a government bailout is necessary - they're too big to just fail, it would devastate the whole system.
And that's what I feel is another thing that's naive about the libertarian view against all regulation. At a certain point, when financial institutions get too powerful, their failure doesn't affect just them, but the whole system. So it makes no sense that they're not regulated. Like if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given much lower portfolio limits and not allowed to make the risky loans it did, things the Fed recommended long ago, it wouldn't necessarily have prevented the housing bubble, but it might have made it less severe and certainly have limited the extent of government intervention now.
On a related note, it's crazy to me how hedge funds are largely unregulated. Again, if their failure only affected themselves and their investors, I'd have no problem with it. But they have crazy power that can even affect nations: Krugman says it's almost certain that there was a financial conspiracy by hedge funds against Hong Kong, Australia, and Iceland. I'm sorry, but when you're influence is that broad, there needs to be some regulation. For Iceland. Iceland!
Nobody read this.
I've always thought of Coldplay as a chick band, one that girls dig more than guys. I've heard that their concerts are dominated by females who dig Chris Martin's sensitive falsetto, some of whom drag their significant others along. Because of this stereotype, I've always been hesitant to listen to them. That and the fact that they're a terrible live band, at least every time I've seen them on TV. We watched them on the MTV Movie Awards and Jieun was indignantly bored, if that's possible. It was bad.
So I'm totally surprised that I love their latest album. Interesting, creative, eminently listenable. As it turns out, the song they did on MTV is among the worst on the album. The rest of it though, I dig. Go Brian Eno.
I know I've written about this before, but I'm terrible on the phone as well. I address this mostly by almost never talking on the phone, but when I have to, it's awkward and terrible. Drives Jieun bananas.
The part I'm worst at is the ending. Really, there are only a few ways to end a phone conversation. "See you later." "Talk to you soon." "It was good talking to you." And so forth. So I mentally prepare myself for the right ending response. The problem is when I choose poorly. It's like in Tecmo Bowl on the NES, when the defense chooses the right play it just destroys the offense, except in reverse. So they'll say something like, "hey, I have to go now." And I'll say "you too". Whoops. I was ready for "it was good talking to you" or "hope you're doing well". Epic fail.
I've lowered my miss rate, but it still happens from time to time and when it does, it sucks, because the last impression I leave is just perplexing. Oh well. Just don't talk to me on the phone. I'm better in person. Ask Jieun.
Last week's sermon was really thought-provoking, at least for me. It was based on a simple question: when were Jesus' disciples saved?
The preacher discussed how it's an interesting question because most evangelicals would probably say that salvation involves both a changed life and the right belief, and furthermore, that there's an instant when this occurs. St. Paul experiences this with his dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus. But if you think about it, the other Apostles don't fit this pattern. He mentioned Peter and Andrew - they have a changed life the moment Jesus calls them. But when do they get right belief? It takes a while before Peter declares that Jesus is the Son of God. And even after that, he rebukes Jesus when he talks about having to die and rise again. Even after years with him, near the end of his earthly ministry, Peter didn't fully grasp Jesus' mission; he didn't have the "right beliefs" about Jesus. So when was he saved?
It's either a really troubling question or a really freeing one. For me, it's really freeing, because it suggests that salvation doesn't necessarily break down neatly into a moment, that perhaps it's a process. And that's encouraging because it fits my experience.
I love my Baptist upbringing, but if it had one shortcoming, it's that I think we reduced everything too much into formulas. We learned the 4 Spiritual Laws. We went through Evangelism Explosion. We went through Discipleship Training. The whole Christian life was broken down to a formulaic process. And on the evangelism side, much of it was geared towards getting people to that singular moment of salvation. The sinner's prayer, or whatever you call it.
I don't mean to knock it that much. These things existed because they worked for their time and place, and I think they bore much fruit. But no formula fully captures the Gospel, and each has its shortcomings.
The problem for me was that the singularity idea made me question for a long time whether I was a Christian. My problem was opposite that of the Apostles: I was pretty sure I had right belief, but I couldn't point to a singular time when my life changed. And because there was so much emphasis on the singularity, it really bothered me. I many times contemplated doing an altar call just to have that moment, but it didn't make sense as it would have rendered what I perceived to be a genuine Christian life before it counterfeit, and I could not reconcile that. At youth retreats, we frequently had "rededications", I think partly to address this, but intellectually, it's a cop-out, and it doesn't solve the fundamental problem, which is maybe why people rededicated themselves multiple times. But it felt like there was a strong emphasis on having a moment to hold on to.
I think the Gospel, and even salvation, is messier than a formula. And that encourages me. The older I get, the less certain I become about certainty. And while a messy Gospel is more confusing, to me, it rings more true to life experience. Maybe it's not necessary, maybe sometimes not even possible, to know exactly when you become saved.
Another recent sermon pointed out something I've been thinking about a lot as well. It mentioned how when you look at how Jesus talks, he asks a ton of questions. It's completely changed how I read the Gospels, and it's totally true. Not that Jesus doesn't flat out preach at times. But there are many key moments where you would think it makes more sense for him to just talk, but instead he asks questions. And he injects questions into conversation in random places. ("Why do you call me good?")
I find that fascinating, and again, freeing. Just to know that it's not necessary to always have the answers, not necessary to always give even the answers I do have, and that there's a place for my natural, question-driven conversation style when interacting in the world. And, to go along with the above, that the point isn't always to get at that singular moment, but to deflect people along the way.
Interesting to no one but me. But yeah, that question, when were the disciples saved, is something I've been chewing on. Fascinating implications.
I've mentioned before how no one can ever sport a Hitler-style mustache ever again because, well, they'll channel Hitler. It's not a great loss, but still pretty amazing that a man can do such evil things that he renders a style of facial hair extinct.
My question is, why doesn't the opposite happen? Like with Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps our greatest President. Newsweek claims he's been the subject of more books than anyone but Jesus. Why wouldn't you want to channel him? Yet I can't think of anyone who's sported his full beard, no mustache look other than former U.S. Surgeon GeneralC. Everett Koop. And maybe it's just me, but I think it worked for him. I strongly urge others to try it. I would myself, if I had more than 20 chin hairs. In fact, I once did, but Jieun said it looked like I needed to wash my face. Not quite the noble statesman look I was going for.
Fascinating statistics, again from this month's CT:
27% - Rate of major depression in women who have attended religious services since childhood.
36% - Rate in women who have changed attendance patterns (nearly all had stopped attending services).
31% - Incidence of major depression in men who have always attended religious services.
24% - Incidence in mend who have stopped attending.
First of all, I'm shocked at how high the rate of depression is in every category. Were I to have guessed I would have been way off. This calls for awareness and compassion.
I really don't know what to make of these stats. I'm not even sure what can be concluded. But it's intriguing.
Boring entry that people would only fully read in college.
A while back, Lee, Blair and I had a Halo 3 session and it was awful - I was the worst player by a fair margin. It's actually kind of strange to me how much worse I am at Halo 3 than Halo 2. Anyway, we played again today (with Dong in the mix), and it was completely different - I did really well, even winning the majority of the individual games. The improvement in my performance was so marked that Lee commented that I must have been playing at work.
Which I haven't been doing. What actually happened was, after the last session, I was so frustrated that I spent a few minutes that night in bed thinking through my game, identifying what mistakes I made, coming up with lessons learned, and possible alternative strategies. And that was the difference.
For me at least, success in Halo is identical to that in poker, investing, and a host of other things. The danger in all of them, and the primary cause of failure, is getting caught up in emotion. Success requires coming up with a sound strategy when I'm in the right mind, and having the fortitude to stick with it in the heat of the moment.
Anyway, it's just weird to me how heady and thought-driven I am such that just thinking about things can make such a difference. I'm like this with everything. The first time I snowboarded, on an FiCS trip, I had heard about Davis who did really well just kind of feeling his way down the mountain. Michelle had said she'd give some pointers for beginners, so I decided to go without a lesson. It was one of the most miserable days of my life. I can't feel my way through anything, and mistakes in snowboarding take a particular toll on your body. It was enough to make me not try again for years.
The next time I did, I took a lesson with Jieun. And it made all the difference in the world. Just thinking through exactly what I need to do is the only way I can do things. My body is just incapable of intuiting things. But tell me exactly what to do and I can force it to do it reasonably well.
This is true not just for things I'm mediocre at but things I excel at as well. Becoming an expert at any activity requires repetition, until it's mindless, relying almost entirely on muscle-memory. (It's theorized that the reason Russian girls dominate tennis and Korean women dominate golf is that for various reasons, foremost being a lack of good courts or courses, they place a heavy emphasis on repetition, doing the exact same thing over and over and over and over, and that this is the key to expertise.) Over-thinking things causes people to "tighten up" and screw up.
This is true for me as well with, for example, piano. As a kid, when I got good at a piece, it was primarily muscle memory. But even with that, I needed a cognitive backup. Before every recital, I would think through the piece, recall every note as it looks on the sheet music, not just the feel. And I couldn't always. I'd say about half of those times, when I couldn't recall things perfectly in my mental map, I'd make a mistake. It's a sign of my laziness that I didn't practice enough to always perfect that mental map and I could only assess things immediately before I had to do it, but yeah.
Even now, I barely practice piano or guitar physically, but I'm constantly thinking it, practicing in my mind, and it's enough that when I do play, my playing is passable. Jieun used to be able to tell when I was thinking it because my fingers would absentmindedly tap chords and runs. That's pretty much how I practice; entirely in my mind.
So yeah, it's crazy to me how head-driven my physical activities are. I can't feel my way into anything, and thinking things through makes a profound difference in my physical performance.
That's why I resonated so much with Socrates' ideas that what we do reflects what we really think. I've come to believe that's wrong; I think Scripture and experience tells me that there are many competing forces within me that vie for control, of which the rational mind is just one. But it's a struggle to really accept that, along with ideas that my emotions aren't necessarily rationally justified. In the moment, I always fall back on thinking that my emotions stem from my rational thought, even that I can control my emotions by thinking correctly. But that's not true, and accepting that would improve how Jieun and I fight. It's just hard to get that to sink in.
SN. Dave has this notion that I'm somehow really good at games, even unbeatable, such that beating me is some great accomplishment. I have no idea where this comes from. I'm probably above average in most games, but I don't think I've ever been the best at anything. Eddie beat me most of the time in Tetrix and Madden 64, Brian M@ was better at Puyo Puyo, Brian Y7e at Snood, Chinsan at Bust-A-Move, and now Dave himself at Dr. Mario. Really, beating me at anything is no big thang. Happens all the time.
Just not the first three games today of Halo 3.
Christianity Today has been pretty good the past few issues. Honestly, some of them time it focuses too much on controversies, debates, and splits; it's kind of depressing. But the China issue a few months back was really really encouraging the whole issue. Both the state-run church and unofficial churches in China are fully legitimate and growing a lot. It's just amazing.
Anyway, each issue has a bunch of quotations on a random topic, and this month's topic ("The Human Condition") had some profound ones. Two of them stuck out:
The power of temptation is not in its appeal to our baser instincts; if that were the case, it would be natural to be repulsed by it. The power of temptation is in its appeal to our idealism." - Helmut Thielicke
The evil wrought by those who intend evil is negligible. The greater evil is wrought by those who intend good, and are convinced they know how to bring it about; and the greater their power to bring it about, the greater the evil they achieve while trying to do it. - Allen Wheelis
Man, that's really thought provoking. Keller says some similar stuff The Reason For God when he talks at length about the original Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story. He quotes a passage where Jekyll is trying to control his bad nature, and vows to do only good deeds, in part to make up for the bad things Hyde has done. At one point, he's sitting on a bench, and comes to be satisfied in the good things that he's done. And then, spontaneously, he becomes Hyde. Philosophically and psychologically, it's a really interesting passage.
I've been thinking about it for a while, and the CT quotations brought it back to mind. And I think I agree. There's obviously no danger in doing good. The danger is when we think that we alone know what is good. When we start thinking we ourselves can do good things, there's a danger there; it's the road to self-righteousness.
Will Smith got slammed a while back when he was misquoted as saying Hitler was good. What he really said was:
Even Hitler didn't wake up going, "Let me do the most evil thing I can do today". I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was "good". Stuff like that just needs reprogramming.
Call me crazy, but I agree with him.
I'm browsing the web and blogging outside, at around 11:24 PM. It's still too hot to be in the house. This heat is ridiculous.
I think I mentioned this in my pics, but I tried out acupuncture recently. I've been grinding my teeth all my life. I'm pretty sure it's genetic - my mom grinds her teeth, and I've heard Abby grinding her teeth in her crib also. They say it's a symptom of stress, but I mean, what kind of stress does a 1 or 2 year old have? I've tried all the things they've suggested, from praying, to meditation, to just telling myself before I sleep "do not grind your teeth" (honest to God, this is something people say works); nothing's worked. The NTI device I've been using for the past few years has worked wonders for the actual teeth grinding, but not the jaw pressure, and I still occasionally have headaches from the clenching at night.
So I tried acupuncture, which is also supposed to help, because why not. I'm sure many people have done it, but here's my experience. It's weird. Starts off normally enough, as they take your blood pressure, just like at a Western hospital. But then they start feeling my pulse. Not checking the rate, but feeling it, describing it in terms like "wiry" and "slippery." Kisoo once told me how his dad went to some Eastern doctor and he did the same thing and immediately detected a medical condition that he did, in fact, have. In any case, it's a little odd. Odder still, they kept asking me to stick my tongue out. I don't know what they were looking for exactly, but they made me do it like 6 times during my first visit.
They asked me why I'm there, then the doctor recommends the points to do, throwing out things like "Liver 4, 6, and 7... Spleen 2". I can't say his tone of voice inspired a lot of confidence. For some, he was like, "and, I don't know, why not Stomach 13". Why not indeed.
The actual needles they did in my head, hands, and feet. For some nonsensical reason, I wasn't expecting it to hurt, but it did. Not like a paper cut pain, at least when they did it right, but a weirder sensation, honestly, like they hit a nerve. Supposedly that's good, it means they hit the chi. Whatever.
Then they leave me on the table with the needles in for a half hour. I have this weird thing where I get itchy at nearly any inopportune time. Like when I play Word Challenge, I have an overwhelming need to itch all over my body while typing. Same thing with lying there with the needles in, but I can't move to itch it. Excruciating.
Like I said, it hasn't made much difference that I can tell. They did, however, give me some Chinese herbal medicine, and I'm a little more hopeful about that, primarily because of a really interesting conversation I had with one of the interns during my last visit, which was probably the best part of the experience.
The guy in question was Korean. When we got a chance to talk, and he found out I was Korean, he asked if I went to church. When I said yes, he said, "good". That was really relieving. Just, you know, there's some weirdness in this whole Eastern medicine thing with stuff like the chi and all. It was just a little reassuring that at least this guy, an apparently devout Christian, thought it was OK.
So in his opinion, he didn't think the acupuncture would help much, because my condition was chronic, something I'd been doing all my life, and acupuncture apparently isn't as good for that. He did think Chinese herbal medicine would help. I expressed some reservations (apart from the fact that it tastes utterly disgusting), for example that I heard that too much of it can be bad for the kidneys.
His response was really interesting, and, I think, insightful. He said that actually, this is one area in which Eastern medicine's approach is much better than Western medicine - they look at a holistic level and strive for balance. In Western medicine, they tend to look only at the immediate symptoms. Once that's addressed, the treatment often leads to problems elsewhere, and they move on to that. I thought that was interesting. I personally believe Western medicine is more effective, but I do think the microvision criticism is a legitimate one, and one doctors also realize. Like the most recent Newsweek mentions how the treatment of childhood leukemia often leads to depression and other emotional and physical issues later in life, and that medicine doesn't address this enough, looking only at managing the cancer. His point was, they wouldn't give something that helps the grinding but hurts the kidneys, because their entire approach is always holistic.
He also mentioned something interesting, another way in which he thought Eastern medicine had an advantage on Western medicine. In Western medicine, when they're testing drugs, before they're approved, the testing is primarily done on animals. In China, for thousands of years, they had human slaves, on whom the kings had no qualms about doing experimentation. So while with many Western drugs they can only guess the long term effects, with Chinese medicine, they know exactly what it will do to the human body, because they tested everything on humans, for better or for worse. He wasn't saying it was right, but it is what it is. And it's kind of a compelling point.
Anyway, he also noted that my limbs were cold (which is another lifelong problem I've had) and recommended that I avoid "cold" foods and eat more "hot" foods, which is another Chinese thing that has nothing to do with temperature. Apparently some foods are inherently cold and others hot. And apparently a lot of the foods I've been eating for health reasons (a bunch of fruits, yogurt, seafood, green tea - "especially" green tea) are cold, yin foods. He didn't have a list with him, but when I browse lists online (like this one) I swear all the hot yang foods are just bad foods, like eggs, meat, and fat. But hey, I'll try anything, and I've been making a concerted effort to eat more yang foods. Again, no real effect, other than a possible coronary someday from all the eggs and meat.
