Recently, I've been wondering about just what generation I belong to. I decide to conduct an investigation in the traditional method of my peer group: Wikipedia. Here's what I learned:
There are a few different ways to measure where generations begin and end
• Birthrate Method: Birthrates tend to increases and decreases in a wave-like motion, and a generation is the period from trough to trough, or the period between two low-points in the birth-rate cycle.
• Technological Method: Looks to the level of technical sophistication of a group of people.
• Strauss-Howe Method: Generations divided into spans of about 22 years. Boundaries are fixed by "peer personality", or the cohort's specific beliefs (Question: Can someone belong to a different generation from his/her birth-peers if they share the philosophy of an older/younger generation?).
The different generations I may belong to:
• Generation X/Baby Buster Generation: By some measurements, I could be one of the very youngest members of Generation X. Most sources list the endpoint as 1978, or generally categorize it as encompassing anyone who way in their 20's during the 1990's. However, some have the boundary as 1983. Since I was born a month shy of 1984, I have some claim--albeit a very small one--to being a member of Generation X.
• The thirteenth generation: coined by Strauss and Howe, this describes the thirteenth generation to live in America since its founding. It roughly overlaps Generation X
• The MTV Generation: Bridges the gap between Generations X and Y, usually spannding from the mid 70's to mid 80's.
• The Boomerang Generation: Another bridge generation, usually listed between 1975 and 1986. Describes a tendency to move back in with their parents after intially heading out into the world.
• Generation Y: Was first used to describe those born between 1984 and 1994, but now usually cansidered to extend all the way up to the early 80's. This name was first used almost as a place-holder until a better term could be found, but unfortunatley too many alternate names have been proposed without a real contender coming forth to take the crown. All the generation name below constitute the list of proposed names for Generation Y
• The Net Generation
• Regan Babies
• The Millenials
• Echo Boomers
• The iGeneration (or internet Generation)
• The Second Baby Boom
• The DARE Generation
• The Google Generation
• The My Space Generation (from my point of view, The Facebook generation would be more appropriate, but I don't know the numbers)
• The MyPod Generation
• GenerationNext
• The Grand Theft Auto Generation
• The Nintendo Generation
• The Me Generation
• The Cynical Generation
• The Einstein Generation
• The Next Generation
Some thoughts on what has made us who we are
• The children of the 80's and early 90's are typically the products of the Baby Boomers. More specifically: unlike Generation X, we are the children of the Baby Boomers who waited until their late 20's and 30's to have children. Because parents who have children later are generally better prepared to care for them, I think that this suggests that many of us will be a little better adjusted than Generation X.
• Those of that do well in school do very, very well, probably due to the factor stated above. The competition to get into good colleges has becomes ridiculous, far toughrer than ever before. However, there are also many among us that do not do well, which I feel is a testament to the growing gap between classes.
• We are clever at learning new technologies. Because we were the first generation to own computers, out minds seem to be pretty dynamic in repsonding to new gadgets.
• Roe v. Wade means there are less of us were born unwanted and into bad situations (note: this is not a statement of judgement, just of observation). There are certainly still some kids who grew up in bad situations, but proportionally less than before. We were supposed to cause a massive crime wave in the mid 90's, but crime actually dropped instead.
• Many of us have divorced parents. I think that our generational cynicism has some of its roots in this fact.
• We have a heightened sense that we can make a difference. YouTube, blogs, etc. mean we can get our voices out there. I think this will lead to a diminishing sense of disenfrachisement.
• We have a lot of options as far as media, and as a result are much more discriminating. We hate television news, and that cynicism drives us to the Daily Show. We are skeptical about print newspapers, and look online for our information.
• We are cynical about the government, having witnessed the political war of the Lewinsky scandal and the various scandals of Bush's term in office.
• We experiment with illegal pleasures, like drugs and alcohol. However, statistically we drink less, do fewer drugs, and drop out of school less than our Generation X antecedants. Our missteps are frequently covered in the media, and our reputation
for such behavior may misrepresent how we actually behave.
• We can easily entertain ourselves; we don't need to go out to have fun. As a result, childhood obesity is on the rise.
Where do I belong?
In my next post I'll talk about which of these appellations seems to best descibe my peers and me.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Democracy is the worst form of government...
...except for all the other ones that have been tried.
-Winston Churchill
Introduction: But seriously: maybe we should spend a little time evaluating how democracy is working in this country. From the moment we enter school, the wonder of democracy and its heroes are trumpeted. We sing songs and make colorful collages glorifying its virtues. Considering that we are raised in this evironment of pseudo-indoctrination, it is no wonder that most of us view democracy as the culmination of humanity's march to social perfection. Perhaps this never-assailed assumption could bear some more impartial reconsideration.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to talk you into giving monarchy another try. I just think that, judging by the less-than-objective way we learned about our system of government, we might benefit from a little reevaluation of democracy (or, more specifically, our brand of representative democracy).
Evaluation
In order to investigate just how well democracy appears to be working, I'm going to select a few issues and discuss how democracy has tackled them. These examples will be very broad with many simplifications, but bear with me.
War
Let's look at how America goes to war. The most recent American military egnagements were:
1. Iraq, part I
2. The Yugoslavian conflict
3. Afghanistan
4. Iraq, part II
For the first two wars, the stated motivation was intervention to bring to a halt immoral action. For the second two, the stated reason was a response to a direct threat to ourselves. In one case, the threat was based upon the evidence of an attack on the US; in the last case, the threat was a predicted, future one.
So, in two cases, democracy went to war in order to intercede on others behalf. Without looking at the specific examples, we can conclude that the American democracy is willing to commit itself to helping others.
In the two final examples, we engaged in war on our own behalf. The first was in reponse to 9/11, and waged against the country that harbored those responsible for the attack. Lastly, Iraq part II, was based upon several premises which have now been proven untrue. Simplified: Americans are willing to engage in war to protect ourselves, even if from a perceived future threat.
Summary: In terms of war, American democracy is sympathetic enough to intercede on others' behalf. It is also quick to act in its own defense, in some cases before the evidence and justification are properly considered. So our grade: overall, pretty good. We could certainly be doing a lot worse, though perhaps a more rational consideration of the facts is in order at times.
Economy and personal welfare
In general, the American public walks a line between a libertarian philosophy of economic darwinism, and a socialist belief of redistributing wealth in order to ensure that everyone is priviledge to basic amenities. Over the years, we vascilate between these two philosophies, but usually strike a balance between the two.
This is a very broad subject, but I would like to suggest that we examine a subset of our economy in order to understand how it works as a whole. The example: health care. Health care is a prime example of America's middle-ground stance on economics. Health care in this country is privatized, but basic care is also extended to some of the population that cannot afford it.
Basically, health care is one area in which it is clear that the system is not working. Americans pay more for health care than any other people in the world, yet America has a higher percent of people without insurance than just about every other developed nation (15.7%, or 45.8 million people!!!). Further: the majority Americans, when explained the details of a state-run healthcare system, would prefer that method over our current situation. Clearly, something is wrong if most people would prefer the system work a specific way and yet the problem persists.
Summary: As seen in the example of our health care system, our system is failing, in some cases, to correctly meet the desires of the people. As this is the stated goal of democracy, the system is not serving its purpose.
Environment and Climate Change
There are no two ways about it: the facts of climate change are terrifying, and our reaction has been poor at best. The world faces an impending catastrophe, and the reaction within the country has not been promising.
To help make my point, here's a similar scenario, with the difference that this one happens over a period of days instead of decades:
Terrorism experts conduct numerous investigations and concur, with 95% agreement, that al Qaeda has a terrible new weapon. It will destroy many of the world's major cities, unleash disease that will infect millions, drive billions from their homes, destroy food and water supplies, and cause tens of trillions of dollars of economic damage. It will threaten the survival of the human race, and certainly send us into chaos. The experts warn that the only way to confront this threat is to dramatically cut back on the fossil fuels we consume.
Wouldn't it seem ridiculous if, following this warning, half the country began nit-picking at the experts' evidence and credentials, while the other half, wary of their political image, advocated adopting only a tenth of the experts' recommended strategy?
Clearly, our system is not working in this case. We have been unsuccesful in understanding and reacting appropriately to this threat. We are far too complacent and unwilling to respond.
This exposes a major flaw of our democracy: we are poor at considering the big picture and acting in our own best interest in the long term.
Two ideas on how to improve our system
I believe that much of our problems are rooted in education and accountability. Here are two methods that might improve our system and decision-making process. One is educational, the second involves incentives.
1. My (un-egalitarian, heretically anti-constitutional, half-serious) Educational Solution
Before any person is allowed to vote, they must answer 10 factual questions that would test their understanding of relevant and important issues. They would be required to score a 50% or better before being allowed to vote.
In this scenario, those with a poor understanding of the issues are removed from the process. The country as a whole is forced to better educate itself on the issues.
2. The Incentive Scheme Solution
Another major problem with our present solution is that voter turnout is very, very low. Most of the country feels disenfranchised. Perhaps if we implemented some basic incentive scheme, such as a $10 tax refund with proof of vote, it would encourage people to re-engage themselves in the process.
-Winston Churchill
Introduction: But seriously: maybe we should spend a little time evaluating how democracy is working in this country. From the moment we enter school, the wonder of democracy and its heroes are trumpeted. We sing songs and make colorful collages glorifying its virtues. Considering that we are raised in this evironment of pseudo-indoctrination, it is no wonder that most of us view democracy as the culmination of humanity's march to social perfection. Perhaps this never-assailed assumption could bear some more impartial reconsideration.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to talk you into giving monarchy another try. I just think that, judging by the less-than-objective way we learned about our system of government, we might benefit from a little reevaluation of democracy (or, more specifically, our brand of representative democracy).
Evaluation
In order to investigate just how well democracy appears to be working, I'm going to select a few issues and discuss how democracy has tackled them. These examples will be very broad with many simplifications, but bear with me.
War
Let's look at how America goes to war. The most recent American military egnagements were:
1. Iraq, part I
2. The Yugoslavian conflict
3. Afghanistan
4. Iraq, part II
For the first two wars, the stated motivation was intervention to bring to a halt immoral action. For the second two, the stated reason was a response to a direct threat to ourselves. In one case, the threat was based upon the evidence of an attack on the US; in the last case, the threat was a predicted, future one.
So, in two cases, democracy went to war in order to intercede on others behalf. Without looking at the specific examples, we can conclude that the American democracy is willing to commit itself to helping others.
In the two final examples, we engaged in war on our own behalf. The first was in reponse to 9/11, and waged against the country that harbored those responsible for the attack. Lastly, Iraq part II, was based upon several premises which have now been proven untrue. Simplified: Americans are willing to engage in war to protect ourselves, even if from a perceived future threat.
Summary: In terms of war, American democracy is sympathetic enough to intercede on others' behalf. It is also quick to act in its own defense, in some cases before the evidence and justification are properly considered. So our grade: overall, pretty good. We could certainly be doing a lot worse, though perhaps a more rational consideration of the facts is in order at times.
Economy and personal welfare
In general, the American public walks a line between a libertarian philosophy of economic darwinism, and a socialist belief of redistributing wealth in order to ensure that everyone is priviledge to basic amenities. Over the years, we vascilate between these two philosophies, but usually strike a balance between the two.
This is a very broad subject, but I would like to suggest that we examine a subset of our economy in order to understand how it works as a whole. The example: health care. Health care is a prime example of America's middle-ground stance on economics. Health care in this country is privatized, but basic care is also extended to some of the population that cannot afford it.
Basically, health care is one area in which it is clear that the system is not working. Americans pay more for health care than any other people in the world, yet America has a higher percent of people without insurance than just about every other developed nation (15.7%, or 45.8 million people!!!). Further: the majority Americans, when explained the details of a state-run healthcare system, would prefer that method over our current situation. Clearly, something is wrong if most people would prefer the system work a specific way and yet the problem persists.
Summary: As seen in the example of our health care system, our system is failing, in some cases, to correctly meet the desires of the people. As this is the stated goal of democracy, the system is not serving its purpose.
Environment and Climate Change
There are no two ways about it: the facts of climate change are terrifying, and our reaction has been poor at best. The world faces an impending catastrophe, and the reaction within the country has not been promising.
To help make my point, here's a similar scenario, with the difference that this one happens over a period of days instead of decades:
Terrorism experts conduct numerous investigations and concur, with 95% agreement, that al Qaeda has a terrible new weapon. It will destroy many of the world's major cities, unleash disease that will infect millions, drive billions from their homes, destroy food and water supplies, and cause tens of trillions of dollars of economic damage. It will threaten the survival of the human race, and certainly send us into chaos. The experts warn that the only way to confront this threat is to dramatically cut back on the fossil fuels we consume.
Wouldn't it seem ridiculous if, following this warning, half the country began nit-picking at the experts' evidence and credentials, while the other half, wary of their political image, advocated adopting only a tenth of the experts' recommended strategy?
Clearly, our system is not working in this case. We have been unsuccesful in understanding and reacting appropriately to this threat. We are far too complacent and unwilling to respond.
This exposes a major flaw of our democracy: we are poor at considering the big picture and acting in our own best interest in the long term.
Two ideas on how to improve our system
I believe that much of our problems are rooted in education and accountability. Here are two methods that might improve our system and decision-making process. One is educational, the second involves incentives.
1. My (un-egalitarian, heretically anti-constitutional, half-serious) Educational Solution
Before any person is allowed to vote, they must answer 10 factual questions that would test their understanding of relevant and important issues. They would be required to score a 50% or better before being allowed to vote.
In this scenario, those with a poor understanding of the issues are removed from the process. The country as a whole is forced to better educate itself on the issues.
2. The Incentive Scheme Solution
Another major problem with our present solution is that voter turnout is very, very low. Most of the country feels disenfranchised. Perhaps if we implemented some basic incentive scheme, such as a $10 tax refund with proof of vote, it would encourage people to re-engage themselves in the process.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Porcelain Predicament
I find this happens to me a lot:
I am in an unfamiliar place, and I severely need to visit the restroom. I head off in a random direction until I see white-tiled flooring through a crack in a door. I charge inside, and begin to relieve myself. But suddenly, my satisfaction is abruptly interrupted by the thought:
Am I in a women's bathroom? I can't remember seeing the sign on the door...
I stand there terrified, until I realize that it's very unlikely that the women's labortory has urinals. Relieved in more ways than one, I proceed about my business.
Is this experience exclusive to me, or does any one else find themselves frequently going through this routine?
I am in an unfamiliar place, and I severely need to visit the restroom. I head off in a random direction until I see white-tiled flooring through a crack in a door. I charge inside, and begin to relieve myself. But suddenly, my satisfaction is abruptly interrupted by the thought:
Am I in a women's bathroom? I can't remember seeing the sign on the door...
I stand there terrified, until I realize that it's very unlikely that the women's labortory has urinals. Relieved in more ways than one, I proceed about my business.
Is this experience exclusive to me, or does any one else find themselves frequently going through this routine?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Education: it's all about history
The Theory
I stumbled across a realization the other day: every educational discipline is in some sense, history. The different subjects we study are simply gradually increasing orders of magnitude in their observation of our history. Each subject can fit neatly inside the next like Russian dolls. Maybe you've already come across this idea, but I am currently excited about it, so I am going to expostulate on it for a bit.
A metaphor: consider education a microscope, and the history of the universe a slide. Observing that slide on the lowest magnification might be the discipline of physics, taking into account how the whole is put together, how it behaves and interacts. Click up to the next magnification, and you have chemistry, a slightly more detailed look at how elements interact on the molecular level. The next magnification yields biology, another order of complexity greater than chemistry. As you keep looking closer and closer eventually you pass anthropology, sociology, eventually arriving at literature.
So, here is my personal ranking of educational disciplines in terms of complexity (sorry if some of my explanations do not suit your views on what the discipline concerns itself with).
The Hierarchy, from microscopic to macroscopic
1. Literature
Literature concerns itself with the exposition of feeling and thought. It focuses on what people believed and felt during a very small span time. A literary period often explains the feelings of a particular group of persons at a particular point in time, often less than a decade. It describes the tensions and outlooks of that moment, providing a very refined, microscopic exploration of a microfraction of human history.
2. History
History concerns itself with the recorded details of human activity. It is usually limited to the last 3,000-5,000 years, and chronicles how different societies have arisen, evolved, and fallen.
3. Sociology
Sociology explains how humans interact with one another. It reaches back before recorded events (History) to describe the dynamics of humanity in groups and tribes.
4. Anthropology
Anthropology spans the period of human history. It seeks to explain the rise and development of homo sapiens.
5. Biology
Biology explains the form and function of organic matter. It looks back to the beginning of life to investigate the origins and developments of organisms.
6. Geology
Geology concerns itself with the study of the Earth. This discipline examines what the planet was like even before life began.
7. Chemistry
Chemistry is a generalized study of particles. It investiagtes specific laws governing these particles, and can be applied to explaining how stars, planets, and life are created and develop.
8. Physics
Physics is a generalized science that takes an even more cosmic view than chemistry. Physics explores how mass, energy, and time behave, describing a series of laws that explain the origin on the universe and the changes it has undergone since.
9. Mathematics
Theoretical applications that exist even without a universe to apply them in (the only discipline that can cliam this). Explains the methods that physics uses.
What's been left out
There are several notable ommisions from this theory. These subjects were left out because I was not sure enough about their place in the hierarchy to confidently include them. Here they are, along with some thoughts about where they might go:
Psychology: The social sciences, with the exceptions of Sociology and Anthropolgy, are hard to place, and may overlap. Psychology, since it deals with human feelings, may be so specific that it comes even before literature, but it may also descibe the laws that govern sociology, so you could place it there as well.
Economics:Certainly fits inside of history, perhaps even literature?
Political Science: Again, difficult to say whether it would fit above or below literature. Perhaps it should be joined with economics to fit in between literature and history? Or included as part of sociology?
Philosophy: Also difficult, because it can be applied to describe very specific periods, or to explain the evolution of sociology.
I stumbled across a realization the other day: every educational discipline is in some sense, history. The different subjects we study are simply gradually increasing orders of magnitude in their observation of our history. Each subject can fit neatly inside the next like Russian dolls. Maybe you've already come across this idea, but I am currently excited about it, so I am going to expostulate on it for a bit.
A metaphor: consider education a microscope, and the history of the universe a slide. Observing that slide on the lowest magnification might be the discipline of physics, taking into account how the whole is put together, how it behaves and interacts. Click up to the next magnification, and you have chemistry, a slightly more detailed look at how elements interact on the molecular level. The next magnification yields biology, another order of complexity greater than chemistry. As you keep looking closer and closer eventually you pass anthropology, sociology, eventually arriving at literature.
So, here is my personal ranking of educational disciplines in terms of complexity (sorry if some of my explanations do not suit your views on what the discipline concerns itself with).
The Hierarchy, from microscopic to macroscopic
1. Literature
Literature concerns itself with the exposition of feeling and thought. It focuses on what people believed and felt during a very small span time. A literary period often explains the feelings of a particular group of persons at a particular point in time, often less than a decade. It describes the tensions and outlooks of that moment, providing a very refined, microscopic exploration of a microfraction of human history.
2. History
History concerns itself with the recorded details of human activity. It is usually limited to the last 3,000-5,000 years, and chronicles how different societies have arisen, evolved, and fallen.
3. Sociology
Sociology explains how humans interact with one another. It reaches back before recorded events (History) to describe the dynamics of humanity in groups and tribes.
4. Anthropology
Anthropology spans the period of human history. It seeks to explain the rise and development of homo sapiens.
5. Biology
Biology explains the form and function of organic matter. It looks back to the beginning of life to investigate the origins and developments of organisms.
6. Geology
Geology concerns itself with the study of the Earth. This discipline examines what the planet was like even before life began.
7. Chemistry
Chemistry is a generalized study of particles. It investiagtes specific laws governing these particles, and can be applied to explaining how stars, planets, and life are created and develop.
8. Physics
Physics is a generalized science that takes an even more cosmic view than chemistry. Physics explores how mass, energy, and time behave, describing a series of laws that explain the origin on the universe and the changes it has undergone since.
9. Mathematics
Theoretical applications that exist even without a universe to apply them in (the only discipline that can cliam this). Explains the methods that physics uses.
What's been left out
There are several notable ommisions from this theory. These subjects were left out because I was not sure enough about their place in the hierarchy to confidently include them. Here they are, along with some thoughts about where they might go:
Psychology: The social sciences, with the exceptions of Sociology and Anthropolgy, are hard to place, and may overlap. Psychology, since it deals with human feelings, may be so specific that it comes even before literature, but it may also descibe the laws that govern sociology, so you could place it there as well.
Economics:Certainly fits inside of history, perhaps even literature?
Political Science: Again, difficult to say whether it would fit above or below literature. Perhaps it should be joined with economics to fit in between literature and history? Or included as part of sociology?
Philosophy: Also difficult, because it can be applied to describe very specific periods, or to explain the evolution of sociology.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Why Dilbert creator Scott Adams might enjoy this blog
There is one major reason Scott Adams, creator of the syndicated comic strip "Dilbert", would probably like this blog: it now mentions him by name. Just a few weeks ago, this might have been an irrelevant point: there is no way Adams would ever have come acros the blog, and if he had, he certainly would not have continued to read it long enough to spot this post (unless, of course, he's a closet ultimate frisbee/fantasy sports junkee). However, all this has changed in the last week.
What's Changed
What has changed, as Adams recently chortled on his blog, is that Google has released a feature called Google Alerts. This program can be set to scan for specified words, and upon finding a new example, it will alert the customer. In Adams' case, every time a blog mentions "Scott Adams", and "Dilbert", a alert is sent to his Blackberry (I join you in thinking that's pretty neat, Scott).
So finally the perfect union of narcissists has been realized. Its constituents:
-Adams, who wants the selfish pleasure of seeing his name in print,
and,
-The blogger, even more desperate to be read.
So I hope you got a kick out of this little meeting, Scott. I know I did. If you're really interested, you can read on a little and find out how to name a fantasy team or test yourself to see if you're a liberal or a conservative. However, I have to be honest with you: your name will not appear again, so you would probably be better off clicking your Blackberry over to the next blogger craving famous eyes. It's sad to see you go, but I know it would be selfish to hoard you to myself while there are other narcissists out there. Take care Scott, and know that it was good for me, too.
What's Changed
What has changed, as Adams recently chortled on his blog, is that Google has released a feature called Google Alerts. This program can be set to scan for specified words, and upon finding a new example, it will alert the customer. In Adams' case, every time a blog mentions "Scott Adams", and "Dilbert", a alert is sent to his Blackberry (I join you in thinking that's pretty neat, Scott).
So finally the perfect union of narcissists has been realized. Its constituents:
-Adams, who wants the selfish pleasure of seeing his name in print,
and,
-The blogger, even more desperate to be read.
So I hope you got a kick out of this little meeting, Scott. I know I did. If you're really interested, you can read on a little and find out how to name a fantasy team or test yourself to see if you're a liberal or a conservative. However, I have to be honest with you: your name will not appear again, so you would probably be better off clicking your Blackberry over to the next blogger craving famous eyes. It's sad to see you go, but I know it would be selfish to hoard you to myself while there are other narcissists out there. Take care Scott, and know that it was good for me, too.
Friday, March 9, 2007
I have seen the enemy, and he is complexity
Introduction
One of the biggest challenges a modern American government faces is explaining complex political ideas in ways that they can be easily understood. In many cases, political parties take short cuts through simplifying the idea. Often that over-simplification takes on the form of a moral maxim.
Example:
Each party is right now trying to boil their ideas on Iraq down to this simplification: BLANK is the best way to support our troops.
If you're a Republican, insert "Staying the course".
If you're a Democrat, insert "Bringing them home."
In each case, the argument is much more complex, but in a word of sound bites and 30-second attention spans any argument that can't be conveyed in 10 words or less is worthless.
Oversimplification and Climate Change
My pet issue of climate change is a major battlefield in the war of over-simplification. Being a largely scietific debate, it is easy to take numbers out of context in order to argue for or against it. In this debate, scientists produce data, and then politicians sift through that data to find information that will support their side.
The following are a number examples out-of-context information that global warming deniers roll out in defense of their argument:
The Arguments and Reality
1. The world has gone through climate cycles in the part, this is just part of nature
Reality: The world does go through cycles, but very gradually. The reality is that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have shot upwards much, much, much faster than ever before. There is no precedent for this big a change this quickly, except for catastrophic events like astroid strikes.
2. Scientists have been wrong about climate in the past so we shouldn't believe them now.
Reality: This is akin to arguing that we shouldn't believe in computers becase some scientists once believed in alchemy. The fact of the matter is that in the last half century the data that we have on the climate has grown exponentially, as have computer modeling programs. Citing scientific blunders in the past is an avoidance of arguing the facts.
3. The temperature is only projected to increase a few degrees. What's the big deal?
Reality: "A few degrees" may not sound like much, but consider the fact that the last time glaciers covered as far south as Ohio it was only 9 degrees Farenhieght different than the temperature today. Seemingly minor shifts have big effects, and worse: once the counter balances are overwhelmed, the increase will continue to grow unabated.
4. There isn't complete consensus within the scientific community. Why jump to conclusions if they don't know what's going on?
The news media has become so sensitive to being accused of having a bias that they have to make sure that all their articles are "balance". What "balanced" means is that you have to give equal treatment to each side. This apparantly remains true even if one side represents 95% of the scientific comunity. If you want useful information, read journals like "Science", and "Nature". These magazines are peer-reviewed, meaning any article that they publish is subject to scrutiny, and must meet fairly rigorous standards in order to make it in. And you will never see an article by a global warming skeptic make it into one of these journals.
One of the biggest challenges a modern American government faces is explaining complex political ideas in ways that they can be easily understood. In many cases, political parties take short cuts through simplifying the idea. Often that over-simplification takes on the form of a moral maxim.
Example:
Each party is right now trying to boil their ideas on Iraq down to this simplification: BLANK is the best way to support our troops.
If you're a Republican, insert "Staying the course".
If you're a Democrat, insert "Bringing them home."
In each case, the argument is much more complex, but in a word of sound bites and 30-second attention spans any argument that can't be conveyed in 10 words or less is worthless.
Oversimplification and Climate Change
My pet issue of climate change is a major battlefield in the war of over-simplification. Being a largely scietific debate, it is easy to take numbers out of context in order to argue for or against it. In this debate, scientists produce data, and then politicians sift through that data to find information that will support their side.
The following are a number examples out-of-context information that global warming deniers roll out in defense of their argument:
The Arguments and Reality
1. The world has gone through climate cycles in the part, this is just part of nature
Reality: The world does go through cycles, but very gradually. The reality is that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have shot upwards much, much, much faster than ever before. There is no precedent for this big a change this quickly, except for catastrophic events like astroid strikes.
2. Scientists have been wrong about climate in the past so we shouldn't believe them now.
Reality: This is akin to arguing that we shouldn't believe in computers becase some scientists once believed in alchemy. The fact of the matter is that in the last half century the data that we have on the climate has grown exponentially, as have computer modeling programs. Citing scientific blunders in the past is an avoidance of arguing the facts.
3. The temperature is only projected to increase a few degrees. What's the big deal?
Reality: "A few degrees" may not sound like much, but consider the fact that the last time glaciers covered as far south as Ohio it was only 9 degrees Farenhieght different than the temperature today. Seemingly minor shifts have big effects, and worse: once the counter balances are overwhelmed, the increase will continue to grow unabated.
4. There isn't complete consensus within the scientific community. Why jump to conclusions if they don't know what's going on?
The news media has become so sensitive to being accused of having a bias that they have to make sure that all their articles are "balance". What "balanced" means is that you have to give equal treatment to each side. This apparantly remains true even if one side represents 95% of the scientific comunity. If you want useful information, read journals like "Science", and "Nature". These magazines are peer-reviewed, meaning any article that they publish is subject to scrutiny, and must meet fairly rigorous standards in order to make it in. And you will never see an article by a global warming skeptic make it into one of these journals.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Ultimate 2.0
Where we left off:
In my last post, I described what I perceive to be the biggest problem with ultimate frisbee: the lack of an incentive in the rules to reward taking chances and punish playing it safe. As promised, here is my solution:
The New Rules
1. Two new lines are drawn from one sideline to the other, seperating the field into thirds.
2. Upon gaining possesion of the disc, a team has 45 seconds to move the disc to the next line. Note: 45 seconds is an arbitrary time, to be modified as deemed neccesary.
3. If the team manages to cross the line, the count is reset. The count CANNOT be reset by moving the disc backwards across a line.
Other potential rule additions:
1. Different point values are awarded for scores thrown from different thirds of the field. For example: a score from the near third would be 3 points, from the middle third would be 4 points, and from the far third would be 5 points.
2. The stall count would be removed in place of a silent count frm an official. So the audience would understand what was happening, the official would raise a hand after he reached "7" to signal a warning, then tick off the remaining three seconds with sweeps of his other hand (like a basketball ref marks off seconds in the backcourt).
Argument for the Shot Clock
The shot clock (or "possesion clock"?) attempts to amerliorate this problem. The division of the field into thirds is aimed to provide an incentive for teams to move quickly instead of cautiously. The division of the field into three zones is also important to flow. This way, if the shot clock is about to expire while you're stuck in your own endzone, you don't need a full-field huck to reset the clock, just a medium pass. The time limit should be set up to give a team a reasonable time to work it up, so long as they keep moving steadily forwards.
Defending the idea
Here are some objections to the idea, and my responses:
Objection #1: It will lead to Huck n' Hope offense, where teams just throw deep when the stall count gets high.
Response: This is absolutely true: a team that squanders its possesion without making any gains would be forced to take a chance down field, just as a baseball player down 2 strikes has to swing at bad pitches, or a football team that has gone no where must throw the ball down field or punt. This is an integral idea in succesful spectator sports: rewarding those who take chances, punishing those who are too cautious.
The ultimate community is disdainful of teams that bomb it deep and never make any attempt to work it up the field. While that strategy is certainly a bad one in the current rule structure, I firmly believe that this the fact that long passes are sneered at is one of the biggest signs that something is wrong with ultimate. The rules must strike a balance between taking chances and playing it safe, and right now they err too far towards the latter.
Objection 2: Teams will play zone defense in response.
Response: This is also true! Good zone offense is very fun to watch. It's only boring for the same reason that man-to-man offense can be boring: when a team grinds out gains half a yard at a time. With the shot clock you have to get on a fast break or lose the disc.
Objection 3: Bad weather will be even worse with a shot clock
Response: This is the best argument I've seen. With a stiff wind, it would be harder to reset the shot clock. My intial response: so be it. Sometimes the conditions are bad in other sports, and you just have to make the most of it. In football, for example, rainy games probably mean lower scoring and more punts. So it goes.
However, if it did prove to be too much of a problem, perhaps the referees should be able to add a certain number of seconds per possesion before the game.
Objection 4: The added lines would make the field too complicated.
Response: Can you think of a sport with a simpler field than frisbee? There are 6 lines on an ultimate field, including the out-of-bounds lines. I can think of no other sport with less, and I challenge anyone else to come up with one. Two more lines would not be a big deal.
Relevant Comparison: Lacrosse
A good parrallel is lacrosse. Lacrosse, long a popular high school and college sport, decided to make the transition into a professional, spectator sport. The rulemakers recognized that long, uneventful possesions drove away fans, and Major League lacrosse incorporated a shot clock and two-point line. This is a great example of how a sport rich in tradition can succesfully be modified to make it more spectator-friendly.
In my last post, I described what I perceive to be the biggest problem with ultimate frisbee: the lack of an incentive in the rules to reward taking chances and punish playing it safe. As promised, here is my solution:
The New Rules
1. Two new lines are drawn from one sideline to the other, seperating the field into thirds.
2. Upon gaining possesion of the disc, a team has 45 seconds to move the disc to the next line. Note: 45 seconds is an arbitrary time, to be modified as deemed neccesary.
3. If the team manages to cross the line, the count is reset. The count CANNOT be reset by moving the disc backwards across a line.
Other potential rule additions:
1. Different point values are awarded for scores thrown from different thirds of the field. For example: a score from the near third would be 3 points, from the middle third would be 4 points, and from the far third would be 5 points.
2. The stall count would be removed in place of a silent count frm an official. So the audience would understand what was happening, the official would raise a hand after he reached "7" to signal a warning, then tick off the remaining three seconds with sweeps of his other hand (like a basketball ref marks off seconds in the backcourt).
Argument for the Shot Clock
The shot clock (or "possesion clock"?) attempts to amerliorate this problem. The division of the field into thirds is aimed to provide an incentive for teams to move quickly instead of cautiously. The division of the field into three zones is also important to flow. This way, if the shot clock is about to expire while you're stuck in your own endzone, you don't need a full-field huck to reset the clock, just a medium pass. The time limit should be set up to give a team a reasonable time to work it up, so long as they keep moving steadily forwards.
Defending the idea
Here are some objections to the idea, and my responses:
Objection #1: It will lead to Huck n' Hope offense, where teams just throw deep when the stall count gets high.
Response: This is absolutely true: a team that squanders its possesion without making any gains would be forced to take a chance down field, just as a baseball player down 2 strikes has to swing at bad pitches, or a football team that has gone no where must throw the ball down field or punt. This is an integral idea in succesful spectator sports: rewarding those who take chances, punishing those who are too cautious.
The ultimate community is disdainful of teams that bomb it deep and never make any attempt to work it up the field. While that strategy is certainly a bad one in the current rule structure, I firmly believe that this the fact that long passes are sneered at is one of the biggest signs that something is wrong with ultimate. The rules must strike a balance between taking chances and playing it safe, and right now they err too far towards the latter.
Objection 2: Teams will play zone defense in response.
Response: This is also true! Good zone offense is very fun to watch. It's only boring for the same reason that man-to-man offense can be boring: when a team grinds out gains half a yard at a time. With the shot clock you have to get on a fast break or lose the disc.
Objection 3: Bad weather will be even worse with a shot clock
Response: This is the best argument I've seen. With a stiff wind, it would be harder to reset the shot clock. My intial response: so be it. Sometimes the conditions are bad in other sports, and you just have to make the most of it. In football, for example, rainy games probably mean lower scoring and more punts. So it goes.
However, if it did prove to be too much of a problem, perhaps the referees should be able to add a certain number of seconds per possesion before the game.
Objection 4: The added lines would make the field too complicated.
Response: Can you think of a sport with a simpler field than frisbee? There are 6 lines on an ultimate field, including the out-of-bounds lines. I can think of no other sport with less, and I challenge anyone else to come up with one. Two more lines would not be a big deal.
Relevant Comparison: Lacrosse
A good parrallel is lacrosse. Lacrosse, long a popular high school and college sport, decided to make the transition into a professional, spectator sport. The rulemakers recognized that long, uneventful possesions drove away fans, and Major League lacrosse incorporated a shot clock and two-point line. This is a great example of how a sport rich in tradition can succesfully be modified to make it more spectator-friendly.
Ultimately flawed
Introduction
Utlimate frisbee is a sport still in its formative years. It is growing in popularity and immensely fun to play, but I believe that a fatal flaw is holding it back from becoming a great spectator sport.
Analysis of what makes ultimate spectator-unfriendly
As it stands, ultimate in an offense-dominated game. It is expected and probable that an offense will score. Most games are decided by which offense screws up more. This creates an incentive to be careful and to not take chances, not a good recipe for a spectator sport.
Incentives in sports:
Baseball players have to take a chance and swing or strike out. Football teams must take a chance to maintain possesion. Basketball teams, likewise, must take a chance or the shot clock will run out.
Soccer is another example of another sport without an incentive to take a chance. Though I love soccer, it has trouble competing in America because it has relatively less action than the major sports here. Soccer's problem is also one of incentives: teams have little motivation to attack and lose possesion, especially if they're ahead. Hence, much of the game is passed with one team playing it safe, shots on goal and fast breaks are infrequent, and ties are common.
This phenomenon is certainly present in ultimate, both by the UPA (games played to a certain number of points) and MLU (timed games) rules. In the case of the UPA, teams are rewarded for efficient, high percentage throws and punished for taking chances. With the MLU rules, teams that are ahead will quickly hit on the idea to have everyone but 2 or 3 players go sit in the endzone, while those couple players bleed out the clock playing keep-away.
The stall count as a failed incentive:
When ultimate was conceived, the stall count was implemented to provide the impetus to keep the game moving, but players have gotten good enough to keep the disc alive by making short passes without a significant risk. Thus, the stall count no longer serves its intended purpose, and elite-level ultimate features teams moving cautiously down the field until they have a high percentage chance.
Furthermore, a team coming from behind in ultimate has no real incentive to start taking risks. Games are played until a team has scored a certain number of points, so if you fall behind there is no incentive, as there is in any other major field-sport, to attack quickly before time runs out. Even in tournament play, where games can be capped by time, you aren't beat until the other team scores, so the incentive again is to be cautious and not take risks.
Next time, on Eclexia:
Stay tuned for the next post, which will outline a strategy for getting ultimate back on track as an exciting spectator sport.
Utlimate frisbee is a sport still in its formative years. It is growing in popularity and immensely fun to play, but I believe that a fatal flaw is holding it back from becoming a great spectator sport.
Analysis of what makes ultimate spectator-unfriendly
As it stands, ultimate in an offense-dominated game. It is expected and probable that an offense will score. Most games are decided by which offense screws up more. This creates an incentive to be careful and to not take chances, not a good recipe for a spectator sport.
Incentives in sports:
Baseball players have to take a chance and swing or strike out. Football teams must take a chance to maintain possesion. Basketball teams, likewise, must take a chance or the shot clock will run out.
Soccer is another example of another sport without an incentive to take a chance. Though I love soccer, it has trouble competing in America because it has relatively less action than the major sports here. Soccer's problem is also one of incentives: teams have little motivation to attack and lose possesion, especially if they're ahead. Hence, much of the game is passed with one team playing it safe, shots on goal and fast breaks are infrequent, and ties are common.
This phenomenon is certainly present in ultimate, both by the UPA (games played to a certain number of points) and MLU (timed games) rules. In the case of the UPA, teams are rewarded for efficient, high percentage throws and punished for taking chances. With the MLU rules, teams that are ahead will quickly hit on the idea to have everyone but 2 or 3 players go sit in the endzone, while those couple players bleed out the clock playing keep-away.
The stall count as a failed incentive:
When ultimate was conceived, the stall count was implemented to provide the impetus to keep the game moving, but players have gotten good enough to keep the disc alive by making short passes without a significant risk. Thus, the stall count no longer serves its intended purpose, and elite-level ultimate features teams moving cautiously down the field until they have a high percentage chance.
Furthermore, a team coming from behind in ultimate has no real incentive to start taking risks. Games are played until a team has scored a certain number of points, so if you fall behind there is no incentive, as there is in any other major field-sport, to attack quickly before time runs out. Even in tournament play, where games can be capped by time, you aren't beat until the other team scores, so the incentive again is to be cautious and not take risks.
Next time, on Eclexia:
Stay tuned for the next post, which will outline a strategy for getting ultimate back on track as an exciting spectator sport.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Sex, drugs, and vital news (in that order)
This month in the news
Here are some of the most active news subjects over the last month to break over the last month or so:
1. Anna Nicole Smith: died; trial ensues over where she will be buried
2. Astronaut drama: NASA love triangle leads to kidnapping plot
3. Iraq: more bombings; Iran possibly supplying weapons; British begin withdrawl
4. Global Warming: international panel says warming "unequivocably" caused by humans
5. Presidential race: McCain & Obama announce; sharp words exchanged between the Clinton and Obama camps.
To demonstate how popular these stories are, I did a google news search to see how many stories were published on each in the U.S. last week. Here are the results, in order from most to least:
1. Iraq: 157,323
2. Anna Nicole Smith: 20,178 articles (1,000 within the last 15 hours).
3. Global warming: 19,088
4. Presidential race: 17,567
5. Astronaut story: 4,671
Other factors
Some additional factors should be noted when considering these features:
-Global warming got a boost this week with Inconvenient Truth winning a few Oscars and the subsequent attack on Al Gore's power consumption; also from new UN Secretary General stressing the urgency of action
-The astronaut story is now more than a few weeks older than Anna Nicole's story.
-This was a medium-to-low intensity week in Iraq, with action in Afghanistan likely drawing some attention away.
Why I find this significant
The reason why I find this significant is the potential consequences that each of these events have for the reader and world in the future. Here is that analysis:
Possible Consequences
1. Iraq: war has killed hundreds of thousands. More will likely die in the future, country flirts with civil war, hundreds of thousands of US troops possibly to be withdrawn.
2. Anna Nicole Smith: no discernable impact on anyone besides few friends and family members (excludes emotional impact)
3. Global warming: Sea levels possibly rise to displace hundreds of millions of people, drinking water and food supply problems cause famine among billions, temperature and disease changes affect millions, weather events continue to wreak havoc, trillions of dollars lost, Earth becomes unsustainable to humans.
4. Presidential Race: Next presidential electee makes executive decisions that have some economic and social effects on Americans
5. Astronaut scandal: no discernable impact on anyone except the few involved.
My point
You probably understand my point by now, but here it is directly: why is it that we, as news readers, are more interested by the death of an infamous celebrity than the possibility of global catastrophe and a threat to human existence?
This is more or less a rhetorical question. I'm pretty sure that the answer is that we're drawn to things that are dramatic and immediate, and bored by things that are large, slow moving, and subtle. Global warming isn't nearly as imminently threatening as a terrorist attack, and it is not a human entity that we can demonize and worry about. It is big and ubiquitous instead of localized; it is not as easy to understand and fear. Simply: it isn't sexy, so we don't pay it attention.
In the grand scheme of things, global warming is huge and Anna Nicole is invisible. If you were to draw a timeline of the human race on a paper, the period during which we've been able to live in comfort and travel quickly through harnessing chemical energy would be represented by a microscopic tic smaller than the breadth of a hair. We've been in control of the world for a fraction of a fraction of our existence, and we've already brought it perilously close to the edge. It's the equivalent of a 16-year-old being handed the keys for the first time, and totaling the car on a tree in the driveway. Or crashing through the closed garage door. Stepping back and looking at the human race as a whole, I believe that global warming will be the most important event in history, and the fastest. It will have taken far less time than it took us to master fire, the wheel, agriculture. No other major event in human history will have happened so quickly, or have had as big of an effect.
Now that I have expatiated a while, lets return to the media.
Here is my question:
Does the media have any obligation to hold us in perspective on these issues, or can they only be expected to be concerned with making a profit, as every other business is?
I seriously cannot answer that question, but perhaps it would be instructive to observe how the media has covered these two events to get a sense of whether they believe that they have such an obligation:
How the different major outlets compare
Here's a comparion of some major online news outlets. I'm ranking them based on Global Warming articles per Anna Nicole Smith article:
_________________ANS ____ GW ______ GW/ANS
CNN_______________51 ____ 34 ________ .67
Fox News_________154_____ 126 _______ .83
Washington Post____134 ____ 230 _______ 1.72
BBC________________7 ____ 136 _______ 19.4
New York Times______2 ____ 169 _______ 84.5
My analysis
CNN and Fox are in a ratings war, and hoping to eat eachother's lunch, so their ratio is pretty close to one another. They're both shooting for the lowest-common-denominator news watcher, someone who is not neccesarily reading the news for any specific reason, just scanning it to catch up. These are the people who are the most likely to have their eye caught by an Anna Nicole Smith article and click on it.
BBC and NY Times are catered towards a more educated audience, who are apparantly more sensitive to global warming issues and less inclined to be interested in Anna Nicole Smith. I'm impressed that the NYT ran even less articles on Anna Nicole than the BBC, whose readers would theoretically care even less as they live an ocean away.
The Washington Post is a little anomalous. It ran the most total articles on the subjects combined. It would seem that the Post is interested in picking up online gossip readship. Why the Post and not the Times is angling for that audience is beyond me.
Here are some of the most active news subjects over the last month to break over the last month or so:
1. Anna Nicole Smith: died; trial ensues over where she will be buried
2. Astronaut drama: NASA love triangle leads to kidnapping plot
3. Iraq: more bombings; Iran possibly supplying weapons; British begin withdrawl
4. Global Warming: international panel says warming "unequivocably" caused by humans
5. Presidential race: McCain & Obama announce; sharp words exchanged between the Clinton and Obama camps.
To demonstate how popular these stories are, I did a google news search to see how many stories were published on each in the U.S. last week. Here are the results, in order from most to least:
1. Iraq: 157,323
2. Anna Nicole Smith: 20,178 articles (1,000 within the last 15 hours).
3. Global warming: 19,088
4. Presidential race: 17,567
5. Astronaut story: 4,671
Other factors
Some additional factors should be noted when considering these features:
-Global warming got a boost this week with Inconvenient Truth winning a few Oscars and the subsequent attack on Al Gore's power consumption; also from new UN Secretary General stressing the urgency of action
-The astronaut story is now more than a few weeks older than Anna Nicole's story.
-This was a medium-to-low intensity week in Iraq, with action in Afghanistan likely drawing some attention away.
Why I find this significant
The reason why I find this significant is the potential consequences that each of these events have for the reader and world in the future. Here is that analysis:
Possible Consequences
1. Iraq: war has killed hundreds of thousands. More will likely die in the future, country flirts with civil war, hundreds of thousands of US troops possibly to be withdrawn.
2. Anna Nicole Smith: no discernable impact on anyone besides few friends and family members (excludes emotional impact)
3. Global warming: Sea levels possibly rise to displace hundreds of millions of people, drinking water and food supply problems cause famine among billions, temperature and disease changes affect millions, weather events continue to wreak havoc, trillions of dollars lost, Earth becomes unsustainable to humans.
4. Presidential Race: Next presidential electee makes executive decisions that have some economic and social effects on Americans
5. Astronaut scandal: no discernable impact on anyone except the few involved.
My point
You probably understand my point by now, but here it is directly: why is it that we, as news readers, are more interested by the death of an infamous celebrity than the possibility of global catastrophe and a threat to human existence?
This is more or less a rhetorical question. I'm pretty sure that the answer is that we're drawn to things that are dramatic and immediate, and bored by things that are large, slow moving, and subtle. Global warming isn't nearly as imminently threatening as a terrorist attack, and it is not a human entity that we can demonize and worry about. It is big and ubiquitous instead of localized; it is not as easy to understand and fear. Simply: it isn't sexy, so we don't pay it attention.
In the grand scheme of things, global warming is huge and Anna Nicole is invisible. If you were to draw a timeline of the human race on a paper, the period during which we've been able to live in comfort and travel quickly through harnessing chemical energy would be represented by a microscopic tic smaller than the breadth of a hair. We've been in control of the world for a fraction of a fraction of our existence, and we've already brought it perilously close to the edge. It's the equivalent of a 16-year-old being handed the keys for the first time, and totaling the car on a tree in the driveway. Or crashing through the closed garage door. Stepping back and looking at the human race as a whole, I believe that global warming will be the most important event in history, and the fastest. It will have taken far less time than it took us to master fire, the wheel, agriculture. No other major event in human history will have happened so quickly, or have had as big of an effect.
Now that I have expatiated a while, lets return to the media.
Here is my question:
Does the media have any obligation to hold us in perspective on these issues, or can they only be expected to be concerned with making a profit, as every other business is?
I seriously cannot answer that question, but perhaps it would be instructive to observe how the media has covered these two events to get a sense of whether they believe that they have such an obligation:
How the different major outlets compare
Here's a comparion of some major online news outlets. I'm ranking them based on Global Warming articles per Anna Nicole Smith article:
_________________ANS ____ GW ______ GW/ANS
CNN_______________51 ____ 34 ________ .67
Fox News_________154_____ 126 _______ .83
Washington Post____134 ____ 230 _______ 1.72
BBC________________7 ____ 136 _______ 19.4
New York Times______2 ____ 169 _______ 84.5
My analysis
CNN and Fox are in a ratings war, and hoping to eat eachother's lunch, so their ratio is pretty close to one another. They're both shooting for the lowest-common-denominator news watcher, someone who is not neccesarily reading the news for any specific reason, just scanning it to catch up. These are the people who are the most likely to have their eye caught by an Anna Nicole Smith article and click on it.
BBC and NY Times are catered towards a more educated audience, who are apparantly more sensitive to global warming issues and less inclined to be interested in Anna Nicole Smith. I'm impressed that the NYT ran even less articles on Anna Nicole than the BBC, whose readers would theoretically care even less as they live an ocean away.
The Washington Post is a little anomalous. It ran the most total articles on the subjects combined. It would seem that the Post is interested in picking up online gossip readship. Why the Post and not the Times is angling for that audience is beyond me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)