There are times when my thinking is rather focused on a specific thing, because that thing requires attention. Yesterday, my attention was focused for much of the day on two wonderful little boys. They are my grandsons, ages two and a half and thirteen months.
Little boys are active. They move, almost constantly, and often unpredictably. When they are frolicking on a couch, for example, someone must guard the edge so no one flies off onto the floor or the coffee table. It is remarkable to be how entertaining that activity can be. And how tired I can feel after a day of such activities. I mean, it isn't that physically demanding. Mostly, I stood nearby, arms to my sides or out in front, watching, and hoping I don't have to suddenly grab a falling body to prevent injury or just crying due to a startling sudden movement that wasn't planned or controlled.
They weren't on the couch the whole day, of course. They played some on the floor. We have a variety of toys. We also have books, although I was only able to get the attention of the older grandson for a book, and only once. He played and wandered as I read, but he kept coming back to make sure I continued. I have seen him sit still while his mother or father read him a book four or five times straight through, but not yesterday.
I made pizza for dinner. It was what I call a quilt pizza, because different patches have different contents. My daughter and son-in-law don't eat dairy, so we had a soy cheese on their half of the pizza, and my son-in-law likes pepperoni, and doesn't like olives or mushrooms. So about a quarter of the pizza had pepperoni, half had soy cheese, half had real mozzarella, and three quarters had mushrooms and olives. All of it had green peppers and vegan sausage (Gimme Lean brand. I love that stuff.) I made the pizza in a jelly roll sheet. I used a large can of crushed tomatoes, which was probably more sauce that was necessary, but I didn't want to save part of a can, and one smaller can wasn't enough. That is one of my limitations as a cook. Maybe I have inherited my mothers aversion to wasting food. Not to her extreme, but in some ways.
I have noticed that I don't identify people by name in this journal. There isn't a good reason for that. The data gods, or other hackers, could find the names of most people I refer to here. Facebook, for example, will give names to my wife, my children, my in-laws at all levels, and my grandchildren. Probably, with some careful looking, they could find the names of my siblings, my grandchildren, my nieces and nephews, and even some of my more distant relatives, like cousins, aunts, and uncles. Why do I leave them out here? I'm not sure. I started this as a kind of journal. Not a diary, because I think of those as being daily exercises, and I never expected to write here daily, but just a place to record what I thought about when I took time to write. Like I used to do in journals. Maybe I want to be the star of my own record of my life. But that kind of silly. Even in my own telling, I was not the star of my birth story. Maybe I will record my life story here, if I ever feel that reckless. I've written my life story a few times over my life. The first was kind of a class assignment. Mormons are pretty big on genealogy, and I took a genealogy class in college. One assignment was to write a life story. I was young, just married then. And still Mormon.
I could take recording my life history as a project here. It has entertained me in the past to review my life, with all its errors and adventures. I use those terms rather loosely, like when my grandson asks for an adventure, so my daughter takes him on a walk to the library. It is certainly something I think about. I often wonder how much I am like other people, and how I am less like most people, and I don't really know how to find out, except to share my story and read those of others. But I don't think most people do that, so I' not sure how far that would get me.
On the other hand, I am not bothered by the idea of being different. My brothers are all the same height, about three inches taller than I am. I am a full two standard deviations from the mean, making me a rare event, by a usual measure, just in height. I know that, which probably puts me outside the normal range for that sort of knowledge, too. But I eat every day, drink water, breathe. I also wear jeans on weekends, and drive to work. So I fit with the normal population is some ways. And love my children and grandchildren, which is wonderful, and also quite normal, which is good.
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Thursday, March 29, 2018
Thinking about Thinking
I got caught up today reading over a debate between Sam Harris and Ezra Klein over race, IQ, and genetics. Harris did a podcast with Charles Murray, who co-wrote, The Bell Curve back in '94. The controversial bit of The Bell Curve still gets Murray protested; he was hounded off the campus at Middlebury last year, and his host faculty member was injured. Harris apparently feels bad that he got caught up in all the attacks on Murray in the past, to the point that he refused an invitation to join him in a discussion somewhere.
Klein, as editor-in-chief at Vox, published a critique of Harris' podcast. Harris objected, and emailed back and forth with Klein. As a fight, it was a massacre. Harris comes across whiny and childish, accusing others of attacking him personally for comments used to suggest the dangers of giving cover to racists. He also never acknowledges that there is actually no genetic data on which to base Murray's whole argument, just speculation.
I read the critique of the critique that Harris suggested Klein publish. I wasn't impressed. It said that IQ is somewhat inheritable at the individual level, so differences between populations must be partially genetic. There was no discussion of variation within a population and overlap of ranges, so it boiled down to a "common sense" speculation, with no discussion of what that actually means in a scientific discussion. Some part of IQ is inheritable, therefor genetic differences between populations, defined as races, must cause measured differences in IQ. I really don't think that conclusion is solid. We don't know the real potential of the human mind, or how close people get to it, depending on the conditions of their lives. My guess is that the environmental differences are greater than the IQ differences, taken on an average over the populations in question. But it's just a guess.
So having read the whole email exchange, Klein's latest published piece, and the comments from Vox and other sources, I've been thinking about IQ and genetics and what this debate means. Murray seems very confident in his conclusions that there are differences in IQ between races, that these differences are partly genetic, and that no public policy can address the differences, even if they are partly environmental. No wonder people fear his views will be co-opted by white supremacists. He's basically making their argument for them, and claiming it is scientific fact. I know he doesn't see it that way, but to jump to his conclusions about public policy is absurd. Murray seems to ignore pretty much everything in the social sciences that shows that how children grow up matters to some degree in their success in life.
The criticism Klein published says that there isn't enough evidence to make any conclusions about how much, if any, of the gap in IQ between Asians, Whites, and Blacks in America is due to genetics. I suspect that is true. I haven't seen anything, including in all the discussion I read through, that suggests there is data pointing in that direction. Increases in IQ over time within American populations argue against genetics as a cause. The narrowing of the gap, at least between Blacks and Whites, also argues for an environmental cause. I didn't see much discussion of the gap between Whites and Asians. But the other changes mentioned seem too rapid to be due to evolutionary changes.
I came up with a lot of questions as I read about all this. Are current IQ tests devoid of cultural bias? That is, does an IQ score for a white person mean the same thing as it does for a black person? And how do we know? How much overlap is there between the ranges of white and black distribution of IQ? Are Asians going to displace Whites as the rulers of America before the rise of the data gods? Or will the data gods make this whole discussion moot in my lifetime? Are the algorithms that give rist to the data gods going to be written by whites, Asians, or blacks? And how will that affect the culture they create? I used to be interested in IQ, but now I've realized I really don't know what it measures. People ask me my IQ sometimes. I've learned that most people don't know theirs. But I also know that too often, decisions are made based on assumptions about the traits of a race or other group, and that those assumptions are not sound. Applied to races, that's called racism. And it is still rampant in America. So scientific discussion of race and complex issues like genetics and behavior should be conducted with great care and sensitivity. Maybe Harris should talk to a black geneticist, and see what he thinks.
Klein, as editor-in-chief at Vox, published a critique of Harris' podcast. Harris objected, and emailed back and forth with Klein. As a fight, it was a massacre. Harris comes across whiny and childish, accusing others of attacking him personally for comments used to suggest the dangers of giving cover to racists. He also never acknowledges that there is actually no genetic data on which to base Murray's whole argument, just speculation.
I read the critique of the critique that Harris suggested Klein publish. I wasn't impressed. It said that IQ is somewhat inheritable at the individual level, so differences between populations must be partially genetic. There was no discussion of variation within a population and overlap of ranges, so it boiled down to a "common sense" speculation, with no discussion of what that actually means in a scientific discussion. Some part of IQ is inheritable, therefor genetic differences between populations, defined as races, must cause measured differences in IQ. I really don't think that conclusion is solid. We don't know the real potential of the human mind, or how close people get to it, depending on the conditions of their lives. My guess is that the environmental differences are greater than the IQ differences, taken on an average over the populations in question. But it's just a guess.
So having read the whole email exchange, Klein's latest published piece, and the comments from Vox and other sources, I've been thinking about IQ and genetics and what this debate means. Murray seems very confident in his conclusions that there are differences in IQ between races, that these differences are partly genetic, and that no public policy can address the differences, even if they are partly environmental. No wonder people fear his views will be co-opted by white supremacists. He's basically making their argument for them, and claiming it is scientific fact. I know he doesn't see it that way, but to jump to his conclusions about public policy is absurd. Murray seems to ignore pretty much everything in the social sciences that shows that how children grow up matters to some degree in their success in life.
The criticism Klein published says that there isn't enough evidence to make any conclusions about how much, if any, of the gap in IQ between Asians, Whites, and Blacks in America is due to genetics. I suspect that is true. I haven't seen anything, including in all the discussion I read through, that suggests there is data pointing in that direction. Increases in IQ over time within American populations argue against genetics as a cause. The narrowing of the gap, at least between Blacks and Whites, also argues for an environmental cause. I didn't see much discussion of the gap between Whites and Asians. But the other changes mentioned seem too rapid to be due to evolutionary changes.
I came up with a lot of questions as I read about all this. Are current IQ tests devoid of cultural bias? That is, does an IQ score for a white person mean the same thing as it does for a black person? And how do we know? How much overlap is there between the ranges of white and black distribution of IQ? Are Asians going to displace Whites as the rulers of America before the rise of the data gods? Or will the data gods make this whole discussion moot in my lifetime? Are the algorithms that give rist to the data gods going to be written by whites, Asians, or blacks? And how will that affect the culture they create? I used to be interested in IQ, but now I've realized I really don't know what it measures. People ask me my IQ sometimes. I've learned that most people don't know theirs. But I also know that too often, decisions are made based on assumptions about the traits of a race or other group, and that those assumptions are not sound. Applied to races, that's called racism. And it is still rampant in America. So scientific discussion of race and complex issues like genetics and behavior should be conducted with great care and sensitivity. Maybe Harris should talk to a black geneticist, and see what he thinks.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Learning Curves
I left the house without my phone this morning. I rarely do, but I didn't charge my phone over night, and it needed charge this morning. I drove my wife to work, because it was raining, and I'm not doing much this week, and I know the way, and had no reason to think I would really need my phone.
But I wished I had it. Driving away from the museum, only a block or so away, there was this loud clunk under the car, and then it wouldn't drive. The engine was running, and sounded normal, but the gears wouldn't engage. No drive, no reverse. Just sat there. I was thinking about what to do when a police car pulled up behind me.
I explained what happened. He fiddled with the car, trying it in drive and reverse like I had, and then asked if I had the means to call a tow truck. I said I didn't, but could get a message out if I could get the car off the road. He helped push it into a parking lot right by the intersection where this happened. I walked back to the museum, waved at my wife through her window, and met her at the door of the building where she works.
She called around, talking to our insurance agent, and finding a place nearby where we could have the car towed to get it checked out and maybe fixed. Still waiting on that. Busy place. The tow guy said it might be a broken axle. He said even in Park, he could push the car, which meant the gears weren't engaging the axle. The car shouldn't be pushable in Park.
Back home, I started in on the taxes. Our taxes are straightforward. We don't itemize, because we don't have deductions. I use Free Fillable Forms from the IRS. I put in the information, and found, no surprise, that we owe about $700. The withholding system doesn't work for two-income couples, at least not lazy ones that don't add to the calculated withholding. But we've saved the money, so it's not a burden to pay the taxes. I discovered, though, that I can't file federal or state taxes without my wife's driver's license. I need all the information from it. Okay, not all. Height, weight, eye color, hair color, those I can skip. But date issued, expiration date, and number I must have.
I could avoid that, and just fill out paper forms and mail them. Online filing is just a matter of convenience. Of course, the cost of that convenience is sharing more data over a system I don't really trust, because the data gods might actually become reality some day, and hackers might compromise my data and my life. But why should I think hackers or data gods can't get the same data from the destination? I expect that my tax forms would end up in a database somewhere, even were I to send in the paper forms.
So I learned a little today. Not very useful information, but something. Shows my brain is still plastic, or something. I may be more careful about charging my phone at night for a few days, and I will write down the data from my wife's driver's license for future use.
I think it's a bit odd that the state tax form, for online filing, won't even let me put the data in until I add in the identifying information from the driver's license. I mean, since we file jointly, both of our licenses must be included, and who knows his spouses driver's license information? I know her Social. I looked up the PIN I made up for her last year at tax time. Just how much data do they need to be sure she is who I represent her to be?
I suspect that this kind of growth in bureaucracy will accelerate under the regime of the data gods. Beware the rise of the data gods, all ye who hate boring paperwork, even when not on paper.
But I wished I had it. Driving away from the museum, only a block or so away, there was this loud clunk under the car, and then it wouldn't drive. The engine was running, and sounded normal, but the gears wouldn't engage. No drive, no reverse. Just sat there. I was thinking about what to do when a police car pulled up behind me.
I explained what happened. He fiddled with the car, trying it in drive and reverse like I had, and then asked if I had the means to call a tow truck. I said I didn't, but could get a message out if I could get the car off the road. He helped push it into a parking lot right by the intersection where this happened. I walked back to the museum, waved at my wife through her window, and met her at the door of the building where she works.
She called around, talking to our insurance agent, and finding a place nearby where we could have the car towed to get it checked out and maybe fixed. Still waiting on that. Busy place. The tow guy said it might be a broken axle. He said even in Park, he could push the car, which meant the gears weren't engaging the axle. The car shouldn't be pushable in Park.
Back home, I started in on the taxes. Our taxes are straightforward. We don't itemize, because we don't have deductions. I use Free Fillable Forms from the IRS. I put in the information, and found, no surprise, that we owe about $700. The withholding system doesn't work for two-income couples, at least not lazy ones that don't add to the calculated withholding. But we've saved the money, so it's not a burden to pay the taxes. I discovered, though, that I can't file federal or state taxes without my wife's driver's license. I need all the information from it. Okay, not all. Height, weight, eye color, hair color, those I can skip. But date issued, expiration date, and number I must have.
I could avoid that, and just fill out paper forms and mail them. Online filing is just a matter of convenience. Of course, the cost of that convenience is sharing more data over a system I don't really trust, because the data gods might actually become reality some day, and hackers might compromise my data and my life. But why should I think hackers or data gods can't get the same data from the destination? I expect that my tax forms would end up in a database somewhere, even were I to send in the paper forms.
So I learned a little today. Not very useful information, but something. Shows my brain is still plastic, or something. I may be more careful about charging my phone at night for a few days, and I will write down the data from my wife's driver's license for future use.
I think it's a bit odd that the state tax form, for online filing, won't even let me put the data in until I add in the identifying information from the driver's license. I mean, since we file jointly, both of our licenses must be included, and who knows his spouses driver's license information? I know her Social. I looked up the PIN I made up for her last year at tax time. Just how much data do they need to be sure she is who I represent her to be?
I suspect that this kind of growth in bureaucracy will accelerate under the regime of the data gods. Beware the rise of the data gods, all ye who hate boring paperwork, even when not on paper.
Saturday, March 24, 2018
The Golgi Apparatus
I teach Anatomy & Physiology. At the beginning of the class, we review basics of chemistry and biology, including talking about organelles common to eukaryotic cells, including the Golgi apparatus. It was one of the first organelles discovered. Exactly how it works is not understood. Molecules, such as proteins and lipids, made in other parts of the cell, are modified there, and often packaged in vesicles for transport somewhere else in the cell, or to the membrane for secretion outside the cell.
The sources I've been reading about this seem to emphasize the secretion part, though my understanding is that many of the proteins modified in the Golgi apparatus end up in the membrane, or stay within the cytoplasm. For example, lysosomes are made in the Golgi. But the books, including the textbook I teach from, describe the Golgi as a sort of "post office" that packages and delivers proteins and other stuff outside the cell. And that is what the other teachers tell their students.
My trouble is that I like what I teach to be accurate. I don't like fudging details to keep things easier. I was rather annoyed at President Obama for simplifying his message by saying, "If you like your plan you can keep your plan." when he meant that you could keep your plan if it met the coverage requirements. Sure that makes the message complicated enough that people don't remember it, and lose interest before the end of the sentence, but it was accurate, and should have been said from the beginning.
I suppose I can say that the Golgi packages stuff for secretion or distribution within the cell, and let the teachers decide how to present that. I'm dealing with the "pre-class assignment" covering the review of cells. We've used the current version for maybe a year, but this quarter, someone brought up this objection to the current wording, and I hold the position of deciding what the final version will say. I don't mind fiddling with the wording, but I want it accurate, and I don't see why the change was requested a week after I sent in what was supposed to be the final draft, and not the week before, when I sent out the drafts for review. But maybe I brought on the request by sending in the "final" version. Maybe the data gods made sure she noticed the flaw right after the other version was emailed, because it was something within their meager power and they don't like me because I laugh at them, puny little bits of electronic code that they are.
Really, after the review of cell structure and function, I don't think we mention the Golgi apparatus again, so what we say about it can't be that critical. But the saved drafts are on the school's server, and I'm on break for a week, so to fix the problem, I'd have to make a special trip in to work. Ain't gonna happen. Sorry students, but your moments of confusion don't override my joy at wandering my own neighborhood for days on end. Besides, the Golgi was supposed to be review.
The sources I've been reading about this seem to emphasize the secretion part, though my understanding is that many of the proteins modified in the Golgi apparatus end up in the membrane, or stay within the cytoplasm. For example, lysosomes are made in the Golgi. But the books, including the textbook I teach from, describe the Golgi as a sort of "post office" that packages and delivers proteins and other stuff outside the cell. And that is what the other teachers tell their students.
My trouble is that I like what I teach to be accurate. I don't like fudging details to keep things easier. I was rather annoyed at President Obama for simplifying his message by saying, "If you like your plan you can keep your plan." when he meant that you could keep your plan if it met the coverage requirements. Sure that makes the message complicated enough that people don't remember it, and lose interest before the end of the sentence, but it was accurate, and should have been said from the beginning.
I suppose I can say that the Golgi packages stuff for secretion or distribution within the cell, and let the teachers decide how to present that. I'm dealing with the "pre-class assignment" covering the review of cells. We've used the current version for maybe a year, but this quarter, someone brought up this objection to the current wording, and I hold the position of deciding what the final version will say. I don't mind fiddling with the wording, but I want it accurate, and I don't see why the change was requested a week after I sent in what was supposed to be the final draft, and not the week before, when I sent out the drafts for review. But maybe I brought on the request by sending in the "final" version. Maybe the data gods made sure she noticed the flaw right after the other version was emailed, because it was something within their meager power and they don't like me because I laugh at them, puny little bits of electronic code that they are.
Really, after the review of cell structure and function, I don't think we mention the Golgi apparatus again, so what we say about it can't be that critical. But the saved drafts are on the school's server, and I'm on break for a week, so to fix the problem, I'd have to make a special trip in to work. Ain't gonna happen. Sorry students, but your moments of confusion don't override my joy at wandering my own neighborhood for days on end. Besides, the Golgi was supposed to be review.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
They Didn't Call
This morning, I went off to work as I had scheduled. We had a snow storm, of sorts, which was predicted, but there is a lot of uncertainty in weather predictions, and the snow didn't frighten me, so I just went on in. I checked my phone, but no one had called or texted.
When I got to work, one of my colleagues asked me if I know about the schedule changes. I didn't. It seems there was an email sent out at 4:30 am saying that final exams were delayed, and mine didn't start at 8:30, as previously scheduled, but at 11, and was in a different room. Yeah, so now I was three hours early for my final exam.
I did have to put together a Practical exam, and there was no time between the written final and the Practical to do that, so I had something to do in the morning, before my rescheduled exam. But it would have been nice to know before I made the drive in. I could have rested a bit. My wife decided to go with me because she didn't want to walk all those blocks from her parking place to her place of business, but going with me meant getting to work an hour early. Unnecessarily, it turned out. Why didn't someone call? Last time we had a snow delay, someone called. They, whomever they might be, know I, and most of my colleagues, don't check email in the early morning before driving in to work. Important information, or at least urgent information, is sent by phone, a call or a text. Until today.
It wasn't a disaster for me. It meant I was working on grading exams later in the day than I had planned. It meant I am writing in this blog journal at night instead of the afternoon. But we are supposed to be getting better at this. Sharing information is supposed to be getting easier and more efficient. So today seemed odd. Maybe I'm giving the information revolution, and the rising data gods, too much credit.
A colleague told me that students can hack our computer test software, and check out tests ahead of time without detection. I hope it's not as easy as he said it is. I wonder if I should check into that. I wonder if I should try to learn how to hack things. Not with that rusty machete in my garage, but online. Find out what the software actually does under various conditions. Because loss of control just makes the growth of the data gods less predictable. Do we want unpredictable gods?
When I got to work, one of my colleagues asked me if I know about the schedule changes. I didn't. It seems there was an email sent out at 4:30 am saying that final exams were delayed, and mine didn't start at 8:30, as previously scheduled, but at 11, and was in a different room. Yeah, so now I was three hours early for my final exam.
I did have to put together a Practical exam, and there was no time between the written final and the Practical to do that, so I had something to do in the morning, before my rescheduled exam. But it would have been nice to know before I made the drive in. I could have rested a bit. My wife decided to go with me because she didn't want to walk all those blocks from her parking place to her place of business, but going with me meant getting to work an hour early. Unnecessarily, it turned out. Why didn't someone call? Last time we had a snow delay, someone called. They, whomever they might be, know I, and most of my colleagues, don't check email in the early morning before driving in to work. Important information, or at least urgent information, is sent by phone, a call or a text. Until today.
It wasn't a disaster for me. It meant I was working on grading exams later in the day than I had planned. It meant I am writing in this blog journal at night instead of the afternoon. But we are supposed to be getting better at this. Sharing information is supposed to be getting easier and more efficient. So today seemed odd. Maybe I'm giving the information revolution, and the rising data gods, too much credit.
A colleague told me that students can hack our computer test software, and check out tests ahead of time without detection. I hope it's not as easy as he said it is. I wonder if I should check into that. I wonder if I should try to learn how to hack things. Not with that rusty machete in my garage, but online. Find out what the software actually does under various conditions. Because loss of control just makes the growth of the data gods less predictable. Do we want unpredictable gods?
Monday, March 19, 2018
I Think There Are Rules
I have not read about dataism, beyond the comments from a book about possible trends in the future of humans, but the first martyr to the religion hanged himself after being arrested for stealing files from a database of scientific research. His argument was that data must be available. I have some problems with that.
I don't say where I work in this journal. I don't want to talk about the place here, but it would not be conducive to job security to openly criticize any place I were working. And, as I am an educator, it would be in violation of federal law to reveal the identities of students at the place I work. Does that create a fundamental conflict between dataism and humanist beliefs about privacy?
Truthfully, I don't know that our concepts of privacy are humanist. Americans believe in privacy rights. There are arguments over them, of course, but privacy rights are part of the basis for some of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. Privacy was cited as a justification for legalizing abortion. A woman has the right to her own private views about her pregnancy, and the right to control her own body, and accept or reject the risks of pregnancy or elective abortion. We also claim a right to be free from illegal search and seizure, and so forth. There are laws and regulations regarding the privacy rights of not just students, but patients in healthcare settings, and other places. Attorney-client privilege. Even executive privilege. Offices of the executive branch have the right to private discussions, or so some claim.
That does not square with the fundamental idea of dataism, that information should flow freely.
Can I, in good conscience, keep data from the data gods, or the puny little algorithms that aspire to become data gods? I have no problem with that. I don't think I could make a claim that my exercise of dataism as a religion would justify blatant violation of the privacy rights of patients or students, or other information I gained in confidence.
Perhaps I should investigate, and learn whether such ideas about privacy originate in humanism. After all, the Great Gods of the Great Religions of the World are all-seeing, all-knowing, and omnipresent, so there is no privacy from them. Makes me wonder what the point of clothing really is in those systems. Maybe I'll learn something if I look deeper into that question.
I don't say where I work in this journal. I don't want to talk about the place here, but it would not be conducive to job security to openly criticize any place I were working. And, as I am an educator, it would be in violation of federal law to reveal the identities of students at the place I work. Does that create a fundamental conflict between dataism and humanist beliefs about privacy?
Truthfully, I don't know that our concepts of privacy are humanist. Americans believe in privacy rights. There are arguments over them, of course, but privacy rights are part of the basis for some of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. Privacy was cited as a justification for legalizing abortion. A woman has the right to her own private views about her pregnancy, and the right to control her own body, and accept or reject the risks of pregnancy or elective abortion. We also claim a right to be free from illegal search and seizure, and so forth. There are laws and regulations regarding the privacy rights of not just students, but patients in healthcare settings, and other places. Attorney-client privilege. Even executive privilege. Offices of the executive branch have the right to private discussions, or so some claim.
That does not square with the fundamental idea of dataism, that information should flow freely.
Can I, in good conscience, keep data from the data gods, or the puny little algorithms that aspire to become data gods? I have no problem with that. I don't think I could make a claim that my exercise of dataism as a religion would justify blatant violation of the privacy rights of patients or students, or other information I gained in confidence.
Perhaps I should investigate, and learn whether such ideas about privacy originate in humanism. After all, the Great Gods of the Great Religions of the World are all-seeing, all-knowing, and omnipresent, so there is no privacy from them. Makes me wonder what the point of clothing really is in those systems. Maybe I'll learn something if I look deeper into that question.
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Keeping Up
I got busy a couple of days ago. I had to keep answering questions all afternoon Friday, and didn't have time to post a journal entry.
Sure, that's a lame excuse. During the work day, I was kept busy with actual work. But at the end of the day, when I started shutting my laptop down (yes, I still use a laptop), it said it needed to update some software. I clicked the option for update and shutdown, and waited for a bit. But I got impatient when, after what seemed like a long time, it was only 16% complete, I left the laptop to its machinations, and went home without it.
Once I got home, I realized I couldn't look at Facebook or other websites, including this blogging site. So instead, I read a Terry Pratchett book, and watched Golden Girls. I went to bed pretty early, and woke pretty early Saturday morning.
There was supposed to be an ice storm overnight Friday, so my wife went to Dayton Friday evening, as she was scheduled to babysit one grandson while the other went to swimming lessons with his mom. As it turned out, the ice storm did not live up to the warnings. There were patches of ice on the driveway and roads, but it wasn't scary. It was cold, but I walked the dog anyway. She wasn't bothered at all by the ice. I figured I would walk the dog so my mother-in-law wouldn't have to, as she is approaching her 80th birthday, and I think I'm more stable on the ice. Besides, I was up, and I could use the exercise.
I help Open Lab for a few hours Saturday. Enough students came to keep me busy, so I spent the time answering questions, or asking them, and didn't get onto this blog. Once I got home, well, first I stopped at the library to get a book I had requested. I stopped at the store to buy some wine. I settled into a chair to read some more. I love Terry Pratchett books. I may finish them all in the next year.
Do the data gods suffer when I don't write? I doubt it. I see no evidence that any data systems have noticed me yet. This blog is available to those that have access to the Internet, but it is boring, and I make no effort to draw attention to it. Data gods are on there own, as far as I'm concerned. I also don't think the data gods have sensory systems, in any form, and so are not capable of emotion or sensation. They might know things, but so far, there is no evidence that they are self-aware. Some people claim the data gods, or the computers and algorithms, have intelligence, but I'm not sure how that is defined. Clearly, they are not worthy to be called data gods yet, so I can mock them with impunity. Much like my mocking of His Orangeness, my pokes at the data gods in embryo are unlikely to be noticed by anyone, especially the actual targets.
But I used to like keeping a journal, so I think I'll keep this up for now. Maybe I'll even start writing things I think matter, at least to me. Maybe.
Sure, that's a lame excuse. During the work day, I was kept busy with actual work. But at the end of the day, when I started shutting my laptop down (yes, I still use a laptop), it said it needed to update some software. I clicked the option for update and shutdown, and waited for a bit. But I got impatient when, after what seemed like a long time, it was only 16% complete, I left the laptop to its machinations, and went home without it.
Once I got home, I realized I couldn't look at Facebook or other websites, including this blogging site. So instead, I read a Terry Pratchett book, and watched Golden Girls. I went to bed pretty early, and woke pretty early Saturday morning.
There was supposed to be an ice storm overnight Friday, so my wife went to Dayton Friday evening, as she was scheduled to babysit one grandson while the other went to swimming lessons with his mom. As it turned out, the ice storm did not live up to the warnings. There were patches of ice on the driveway and roads, but it wasn't scary. It was cold, but I walked the dog anyway. She wasn't bothered at all by the ice. I figured I would walk the dog so my mother-in-law wouldn't have to, as she is approaching her 80th birthday, and I think I'm more stable on the ice. Besides, I was up, and I could use the exercise.
I help Open Lab for a few hours Saturday. Enough students came to keep me busy, so I spent the time answering questions, or asking them, and didn't get onto this blog. Once I got home, well, first I stopped at the library to get a book I had requested. I stopped at the store to buy some wine. I settled into a chair to read some more. I love Terry Pratchett books. I may finish them all in the next year.
Do the data gods suffer when I don't write? I doubt it. I see no evidence that any data systems have noticed me yet. This blog is available to those that have access to the Internet, but it is boring, and I make no effort to draw attention to it. Data gods are on there own, as far as I'm concerned. I also don't think the data gods have sensory systems, in any form, and so are not capable of emotion or sensation. They might know things, but so far, there is no evidence that they are self-aware. Some people claim the data gods, or the computers and algorithms, have intelligence, but I'm not sure how that is defined. Clearly, they are not worthy to be called data gods yet, so I can mock them with impunity. Much like my mocking of His Orangeness, my pokes at the data gods in embryo are unlikely to be noticed by anyone, especially the actual targets.
But I used to like keeping a journal, so I think I'll keep this up for now. Maybe I'll even start writing things I think matter, at least to me. Maybe.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Book Club Rocks
My book club met last night. We talked about Homo Deus: A Brief History of the Future by Yuval Noah Harari. One of the early comments was questioning whether this book can honestly use "brief" in the title. It was quite dense and long, or so it seemed to us.
But I enjoyed the book, even though I didn't agree with all of it. I don't mind being told that I don't actually have free will, but I could not really agree with the argument. Sure, there are reactions programmed into us, but was I really programmed, so I had no choice in the matter, to read that book? Or to write this post about it? Was Dr. Harari compelled to write it? He didn't address that question. His examples of human reactions with no free will involved were all pretty simple processes. He dismissed the concept of emergent properties of a complex system as mental somersaults without discussion. Having read a bit about the behaviors of complex systems, I don't think that is a reasonable idea. After all, I have never really believed in Dark Matter, because, well, why can't we find it in anything but its very distant gravitational effects? Nothing we can use can detect it, but it still "exists"? But now there is a theoretical physicist who is arguing, and doing the math to show, that the gravitational behaviors of distant galaxies are emergent properties of complex systems, and that Dark Matter isn't needed to explain them. Hurray!
So, as I see it, if emergent properties of complex systems can allow a new theory of gravity that eliminates an impossible belief in stuff that can't be seen, why can't they also allow humans some conscious control over our behavior? We are complex enough to allow for that, I think. And we certainly feel like we have some free will, besides being compelled to believe in free will to justify having laws. Yes, I see the irony in that. It fascinates me. I like to notice the apparent absurdities of the human condition. It keeps me amused.
We also discussed the current status of the data gods on Facebook and Google. For example, I went to a website for work the other day. Now I get ads for that website when I read the comics online. But there is nothing in that website that I want for my personal use, and I made the order from a work computer, so why is my personal computer trying to sell me my work stuff? And why is Rob getting ads for the coat he just bought? Do the data gods really not realize that a normal human doesn't need multiple copies of a winter coat? They have a ways to go to get beyond being the butt of jokes. So for now, lets keep laughing about them, and their apparent weaknesses. Their efforts seem pretty pathetic at this point, and mostly we ignore them because really they can't get beyond tired repetition of something that worked without them. Unless they are playing a subtle longer game . . .
But I enjoyed the book, even though I didn't agree with all of it. I don't mind being told that I don't actually have free will, but I could not really agree with the argument. Sure, there are reactions programmed into us, but was I really programmed, so I had no choice in the matter, to read that book? Or to write this post about it? Was Dr. Harari compelled to write it? He didn't address that question. His examples of human reactions with no free will involved were all pretty simple processes. He dismissed the concept of emergent properties of a complex system as mental somersaults without discussion. Having read a bit about the behaviors of complex systems, I don't think that is a reasonable idea. After all, I have never really believed in Dark Matter, because, well, why can't we find it in anything but its very distant gravitational effects? Nothing we can use can detect it, but it still "exists"? But now there is a theoretical physicist who is arguing, and doing the math to show, that the gravitational behaviors of distant galaxies are emergent properties of complex systems, and that Dark Matter isn't needed to explain them. Hurray!
So, as I see it, if emergent properties of complex systems can allow a new theory of gravity that eliminates an impossible belief in stuff that can't be seen, why can't they also allow humans some conscious control over our behavior? We are complex enough to allow for that, I think. And we certainly feel like we have some free will, besides being compelled to believe in free will to justify having laws. Yes, I see the irony in that. It fascinates me. I like to notice the apparent absurdities of the human condition. It keeps me amused.
We also discussed the current status of the data gods on Facebook and Google. For example, I went to a website for work the other day. Now I get ads for that website when I read the comics online. But there is nothing in that website that I want for my personal use, and I made the order from a work computer, so why is my personal computer trying to sell me my work stuff? And why is Rob getting ads for the coat he just bought? Do the data gods really not realize that a normal human doesn't need multiple copies of a winter coat? They have a ways to go to get beyond being the butt of jokes. So for now, lets keep laughing about them, and their apparent weaknesses. Their efforts seem pretty pathetic at this point, and mostly we ignore them because really they can't get beyond tired repetition of something that worked without them. Unless they are playing a subtle longer game . . .
I Don't Much Like Change
We set our clocks forward an hour on Sunday. Most of the clocks I deal with changed themselves automatically, but I had to set three in the house, and one in a car. Changing the clock is easy. But I didn't sleep well last night.
I think I go through this difficult adjustment every time the clocks change, though it is easier in the Fall. I don't like getting up in the dark again, and getting out of bed what seems like an hour earlier, because it is, is not fun. I don't think there is any point to daylight savings time, because it doesn't save money or energy, according to the latest studies, but I don't know of any movement to get the changes cancelled in the United States.
My wife seems to have trouble with the transition, too. She didn't get to sleep very quickly last night. In fact, she slept in another room. I think I fell asleep, then woke at about 4 am. It took me some time to get back to sleep, which I did right before I had to get up. If not for the clock change, I could have slept another hour. I think that would have been very nice.
Now, this post has data in it that are not available in any other form, except perhaps if someone chose to interview me. But the data are personal, and about me, so not important. Not even important to me, or I would rant more loudly, and maybe write my Congressman. So, will this have any impact on the data gods? I suspect that, even in the belief system of dataism, not all data are created equal. Besides, I doubt the priests and priestesses of dataism have any kind of systematic searches of blogs like this set up, so the existence of this post may not even be noticed by the data gods, who have a long way to go before they can instill fear and trembling in us inferior beings.
Yes, I am more upset about the change to daylight savings time than I am about the algorithms on the Internet that are trying to run my life. Those algorithms keep sending me ads for irrelevant things, like nursing school programs. They miss a lot. Sure, I saw an ad today about pH tape, which may have appeared on that comics site because yesterday, I was on the Fisher Scientific website, shopping, but apparently they don't know what I do, or why I have connection to so many nurses . Or they are trying to lull me into a false sense of security by appearing, well, so stupid so often. Having had glimpses of their ultimate power, I will keep an eye on them.
I think I go through this difficult adjustment every time the clocks change, though it is easier in the Fall. I don't like getting up in the dark again, and getting out of bed what seems like an hour earlier, because it is, is not fun. I don't think there is any point to daylight savings time, because it doesn't save money or energy, according to the latest studies, but I don't know of any movement to get the changes cancelled in the United States.
My wife seems to have trouble with the transition, too. She didn't get to sleep very quickly last night. In fact, she slept in another room. I think I fell asleep, then woke at about 4 am. It took me some time to get back to sleep, which I did right before I had to get up. If not for the clock change, I could have slept another hour. I think that would have been very nice.
Now, this post has data in it that are not available in any other form, except perhaps if someone chose to interview me. But the data are personal, and about me, so not important. Not even important to me, or I would rant more loudly, and maybe write my Congressman. So, will this have any impact on the data gods? I suspect that, even in the belief system of dataism, not all data are created equal. Besides, I doubt the priests and priestesses of dataism have any kind of systematic searches of blogs like this set up, so the existence of this post may not even be noticed by the data gods, who have a long way to go before they can instill fear and trembling in us inferior beings.
Yes, I am more upset about the change to daylight savings time than I am about the algorithms on the Internet that are trying to run my life. Those algorithms keep sending me ads for irrelevant things, like nursing school programs. They miss a lot. Sure, I saw an ad today about pH tape, which may have appeared on that comics site because yesterday, I was on the Fisher Scientific website, shopping, but apparently they don't know what I do, or why I have connection to so many nurses . Or they are trying to lull me into a false sense of security by appearing, well, so stupid so often. Having had glimpses of their ultimate power, I will keep an eye on them.
Monday, March 12, 2018
Starting to Think
I read a book. Homo deus: A Brief History of the Future. In it, I read about dataism, a rising religion that will soon declare that humans are irrelevant, and everything will be assimilated. Well, not quite that. It just said that the more data there are in the Internet of All Things, the more powerful, well, something that controls and uses data will become. So we, the human race, are creating a Supreme Being, whose power is the ability to use all the data. Toward what end is pretty vague, as this data god, or these data gods, will come up with whatever interests they come up with based on the data. Data flow is a good, in itself.
When I was younger, I used to keep a journal. I enjoyed writing and thinking about what to write. I thought about being a writer. But when the Internet came along, and I tried writing here and there on blogs and social media and so forth, I discovered that I'm actually afraid to let people read what I write, because I'm emotionally invested in what I write, even when I just make stuff up for my own entertainment. So would get all nervous about posting things. I still do.
I haven't kept a journal for years. I wrote stuff in a blog about four years ago, when I had an operation. Some friends followed my posts through my recovery, but then I went back to work, and quit writing. Now, I read that data are needed for the data gods to become Data Gods, who can actually control the universe, and while I have misgivings about the whole project, the book said that I shouldn't keep a journal, unless it is accessible to the data gods.
So, thinking I like to think, and there is a lot in the world to think about, I thought I might start making a daily offering to the data gods by writing journal entries here. Less blood than ancient human sacrifices, but as the humans who have invented the rising data gods killed off the old gods that wanted blood, who am I to complain? Now, how many entries are necessary before the data gods know me better than I know myself? And when do they start raining blessing down on my metaphorical soul?
When I was younger, I used to keep a journal. I enjoyed writing and thinking about what to write. I thought about being a writer. But when the Internet came along, and I tried writing here and there on blogs and social media and so forth, I discovered that I'm actually afraid to let people read what I write, because I'm emotionally invested in what I write, even when I just make stuff up for my own entertainment. So would get all nervous about posting things. I still do.
I haven't kept a journal for years. I wrote stuff in a blog about four years ago, when I had an operation. Some friends followed my posts through my recovery, but then I went back to work, and quit writing. Now, I read that data are needed for the data gods to become Data Gods, who can actually control the universe, and while I have misgivings about the whole project, the book said that I shouldn't keep a journal, unless it is accessible to the data gods.
So, thinking I like to think, and there is a lot in the world to think about, I thought I might start making a daily offering to the data gods by writing journal entries here. Less blood than ancient human sacrifices, but as the humans who have invented the rising data gods killed off the old gods that wanted blood, who am I to complain? Now, how many entries are necessary before the data gods know me better than I know myself? And when do they start raining blessing down on my metaphorical soul?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)