Penn Gillette once said, “real magic is fake, and fake magic is real”, in response to whether he and Teller did “real magic”. Since all the magic anyone has ever seen is based on illusions, he was saying that the “real” type (i.e. supernatural) is actually the fake one because it doesn’t exist - illusions do.
I was talking to a friend the other day about the meaning of life, and we both agreed that life has no knowable meaning. However, we both came to very different conclusions as to what implications this has. His response was that, absent meaning, we really can’t say what choices are right or wrong because there’s no way to judge. Therefore, do whatever you’d like - it doesn’t matter.
True, there’s no one but ourselves to answer to, but that doesn’t mean that we should think our own opinion is irrelevant to the choice. Instead, I think we actually should try to find whatever gives us meaning personally and try to pursue this because it makes us happy and has a good chance of bringing other happiness*. This isn’t perfectly defensible, as if an immutable god carved it in stone, but it doesn’t have to be. If all "real" meaning is fake, fake meaning is the only real kind.
Joseph Pine had an interesting TED Talk on “What Consumers Want” (see below) where he defined a simple system for describing authenticity. He said that truly authentic things are “real real” - true to the world, true to themselves. Think of a climbing to Mt. Everest or some similar visceral experience. Then there are the “fake real” things: fake to the world, true to themselves. His example was Disney World - where everyone knows it’s not really "The Magic Kingdom", but it’s supposed to be fake, so we accept it and enjoy. Likewise, his example of "real fake" is Universal's City Walk where you can see behind all the scenery (true to the world), but it's not really true to itself (it's not a real city).
I think meaning and authenticity are really the same thing. Authenticity is an expression of meaning itself. There is no “real real” meaning, but it doesn’t matter. Accept the real fake magic and enjoy yourself!
*People aren’t that different, usually people aren’t isolated in their views of what has meaning.
Some of the AlphaLab mafia (DeviceKnit, Fooala, and CloudFab specifically), currently residing in StartUptown, have started to pick up on a meme that I've come to love: Startup Rap.
It's basically a sub-genre of nerdcore rap, which is a play on hardcore rap, but this time with startup themes. A good friend of ours, part of the second AlphaLab class, and current no-show in the Startup Rap scene, Don Charlton once compared startup culture with rap culture because both:
- Have huge emphasis on personalities (Jay-Z / DHH)
- Have "rough" lives during their initial rise to glory
- Focus on making money
- Always have to be hustlin' (so hard)
...and I'm sure plenty more.
I'd like to leave you guys with these embeds of the current crop of start hits. Enjoy!
RJMetrics rap about the perils of not staying on top of your online metrics, which can be overwhelming, and yet at the same time can often be the key to victory.
After R.J.M.'s "Business Intelligence", Patrick at Bingo Card Creator Blog made his own rap calling out other founders without business partners in: "Won't the Solo Founders Please Stand Up" - a parody of Eminem.
Posted on GigaOM, is "The Foursquare Rap: Badges Like Us" which reps their favorite app and the great community and quirks that exist around it.
Then came THE NEW DORK's "Entrepreneur State of Mind", a parody of Jay-Z's "Empire State of Mind", and is widely regarded as the first well produced video in the startup rap scene.
Recently, on the NYC startup rap scene, and here seen on Justin.TV, is a new currently unnamed founda spittin' his beats and reppin' his city.
As someone who's always trying to get the most out of my brain, I'm always game to trying a new technique to improve its performance. Some people prefer physical fitness - I prefer mental fitness. After all, thinking is the essence of humanity - not physical strength.
Something I've been trying for several years, is trying to eat a diet that would help my brain, and like any diet, I would always relapse into my normal habits. Recently, I've taken it back up to new levels, and some of my friends told me that they'd be interested to hear my thoughts on the topic. Here goes!
Two Head Games
The biggest distinction in brain food is between short/long term gains. The short term is all about maintaining the proper blood chemistry throughout the day, and the long term is about feeding the brain what it needs to be healthy and grow to be all it can be.
Slow Burn
A big part of the short term is about blood glucose levels. It's always repeated in the literature that "the brain is only 2% of our body weight, but consumes 20% of our daily calories", and what does that mean? Glucose mainly.
Before you go out to buy that case of Mountain Dew though, you should know that it's not so much about how much glucose you have, but more about avoiding peaks. If you have a sugar-rush you will have a sugar crash, this is caused by the fast burn rate of simple sugars (graph). We need to eat complex carbs - the more complex the better. To find the best, we need to search the glycemic index for foods with the lowest GI numbers - it only works for food with carbs. It turns out that fruits, vegetables and whole grains are the best bet. Wikipedia also has a good article.
It doesn't stop there though. Since most carbs are burned within two hours, we've got some time before the next meal. Protein to the rescue! Protein allows your body to maintain a constant blood glucose level by stimulating the liver to release stored glucose. Protein also digests slower and provides the effect low enough for your next meal.
Likewise, fats (ketones) are used as secondary brain food (after glucose), so a little unsaturated fat will also help maintain a good steady supply of energy. Too much though (and this goes for sugar too), will cause an imbalance that will caused you to become sleepy (think of post-Thanksgiving).
Another way of smoothing sugar level is by spreading out the digestion of food using fiber. Fiber is nature's time-release technique that makes it hard to get at all the carbs at once. Eating low GI foods that are high in fiber (fruits / vegetables / legumes) lead to smooth sugar levels.
Long Haul
There are a lot of things our brains need to grow and operate at peak performance, however the American diet isn't very beneficial to obtaining many of them. Let's go through a few groups of them:
+ Omega-3 fatty acid are well known to improve brain function, not to mention reduce cholesterol, decrease vascular disease, and a host of other great benefits.
Sources: Fatty fish (salmon is the best, followed by swordfish, tuna, etc.), walnuts (try organic walnut butter on whole grain bread for breakfast), flax (try Kashi's GoLean Flax/Almond/Honey Cereal), grass-fed beef has a higher O6/3 ratio (the grass produces the omega 3's, I guess the free ranger's are on to something).
+ Antioxidents
Blueberrys were shown to regenerate and improve dendrites in your brain. These are the connections between neurons that have been shown to correlate with intelligence. You need to eat about a cup a day for the best results. I buy mine frozen to preserve the berries and my wallet.
Blackberrys/Raspberrys both have high level of flavonoids which are strong antioxidants, and polyphenols which help protect your brain's nerves and have shown to decrease Alzheimer's disease and even cancer. I eat them in the morning with yogurt - delicious!
Any citrus fruit (grapefruit is the best), is great for antioxidents as well, however berries have them in much higher concentrations. However, it's best to be well-rounded so eating a variety of them is always good.
+ Proteins (Tyrosine / Tyrptophan specifically)
Both of these are precursors neurotransmitters that transfer signals in your brain. In addition, they can help maintain good mood during stress.
Good sources: egg, soy, cheese, lean meat and sunflower/sesame seeds.
+ Nuts
- Almonds contain a lot of Vitamin E, phenylalanine (anti-depressant), and (like eggs below) assists in acetylcholine production. Sliced almonds are great in cereal!
- Walnuts as mentioned have omega 3's and 6's and are overall awesome for your grey matter.
- Pecans, Cashews, and even the humble Peanut are also pretty good too.
+ Eggs
They're a great source of choline which has been shown to lead to all sorts of good things, including helping brain disorders. Choline is a building block for making acetylcholine which is involved with memory - as well as many other brain and nerve functions.
+ Multivitamin & Water
Best keep hydrated and take a simple vitamin. I'm a Centrum Performance guy myself since it has 300% of your daily allowance of B-12 (which some think increases energy).
Stimulants
There is evidence that caffeine does provide an initial boost from 30min - 3 hours after drinking. Cigarettes and other forms of nicotine can provide similar effects. I just stick with coffee through.
As a side note: Even though I'm not a massive fan of taking medicines all the time because your brain becomes dependent on them, there are certainly times when you could use some "doping" to get you through hard periods of work.
There are also many people who use ADHD drugs like Adderall, Ritalin, etc. to increase their concentration, and some have found that Sudafed (Pseudoephedrine) have very similar effects to these medications and is currently over-the-counter. Provigil is also used to increase their alertness for late night studying.
A RAND study (that I can't find!) showed that 120mg Sudafed and 300mg caffeine yielded greater results that either one alone in higher doses - however this is a potentially dangerous combination for long term use.
Feedback
I'd love to hear what other people think, and also if you have any more tips to add!!!
As anyone involved with the internet / startups knows, one of the plagues of the internet is cybersquatting - holding a domain without using it for legitimate purpose. The obvious effect of this is that a lot of great names go underutilized and are basically internet spam.
People have been begging for ICANN to do something, and there are even laws like the ACPA that aim to reduce this squatting. Of course though, such laws are written so that Verizon doesn't have to deal with Verzon.com. In addition, it's basically expanding the trademark law to domains - which really doesn't always favor society's interests.
This is really an issue of a "tragedy of the commons" - where a public good (i.e. a grazing field) can be used without restraint by anyone (i.e. sheep). In the end, this resource will be depleted and unusable. The internet is just a really big field. Only the internet's size prevents us from having a larger problem.
In the real estate world, this problem is very common. In some up and coming neighborhoods, people want to speculate while spending as little as possible. What they do is buy a useless building and demolish it so they don't have to pay for maintenance, but more importantly as much property tax liability. In most cities, the building, not the land, is the majority of the tax, so by just owning a lot, the speculator can get the highest return.
To solve this problem, you can impose a land value tax, which taxes only the land - not the building. What this does is makes speculating to expensive, and hence the land must be used productively. Ideally, the most valuable land (say downtown) is used for the highest value projects (skyscrapers, stadiums, etc.) and land is subdivided to increase urban density - and hence profitability and production per area.
I'm calling for the same principle to be used for domain names. It would work like an auction with the highest bidder winning the domain name. Owners would place a maximum bid they're willing to pay, and anyone could bid against it at any time.
You're probably thinking, "What if I own X domain name, and I can't afford the fee?" For this, I would also propose a pretty low cap at a rate the keeps most squatters away- so that owners wouldn't be taxed out of the market. If we believe this guy, at most $500/yr would be sufficient. This will certainly make a lot of casual squatters think twice about hoarding good names, but it will also open up a lot of great domain names that are sitting idle as well.
There would probably still be squatters like Verzon.com, that might pay up for the off chance they get Verizon to pay. However, the auction system could be adapted to allow offers to be placed and must be responded too within X time period. This would encourage having the right contact info for sure.
In the least, this would be a massive improvement for the internet. I'd really like to hear everyone's opinion on this though, because it's been something I've been thinking about for a while.
We live in a world overflowing with information. The internet's largest problem is organization of data - as Google has certainly embraced. Take a step back to a world before the modern explosion of data, and you'll see publishers ruled the information world. They were the curators of thought and the best actually were pretty impartial. The NY Times became huge by impartial coverage with its motto of "All the news that's fit to print". What great market dynamics to select the most truthful news source. This was needed at the time because there was no possible way of coordinating thought.
Widespread consolidation took place in media during the 20th Century. People in the 1960's had only a few channels of radio and TV, and newspapers like The Times were very trust as the sole sources of truth. Today though these people still remain and hold massive influence, however their days are certainly numbered in their current form. Information can no longer be best created and allocated in this way. We're entering a new period of media.
Unlike social media cheerleaders though, I don't think the NYT is going to be dead in 5 years, but certainly they will have to change their role. The issue is that their place as "the" source is being widely questioned and of course their business model is being eroded by free and high quality online media.
Without these organizations though, people argue that we'll be unable to know the truth. They say blogs feed off of the mass media. This is certainly true in that many blogs comment on the news, however I wouldn't mistake their commenting on the news as just following their lead. There are more and more sources of news, and indeed any user of Twitter has gotten the news before the mainstream media. Mass media still has the greatest ability to influence our daily thoughts and hence what bloggers think to talk about, however that role is diminishing.
With the democratization of news comes the need to filter the information for truth and relevance. Sites like Digg, Reddit and SlashDot certainly find interesting and very often more relevant news than the mainstream media, however they're still highly susceptible to group-think. Critics point this out, however look no further than Fox News to find extreme group-think "news", and the same is true on the left. CNN, etc. all have a progressive bias, and both groups assume the narrative of the establishment - just both sides of it.
Aside from these mature sites, there are other new concepts at filtering the torrent of online information. People talked about the semantic web knowing being able give great results based on a truer meaning of our queries, but we've not been able to realize this as of yet - and probably won't for a long time. Instead, we're seeing social answers to the questions of organization: Wikipedia, Twitter Lists, Ardvark etc. are all great examples of how we can filter reality.
We can see that new forms of media are providing smoother allocation of events and ideas, however we're still at the mercy of group think. What keeps us from just seeking news that fits with our current view? This is a question that worries me the most. Online sources will doubtlessly provide more / more relevant info, but we still don't see many (any?) opposing view points on news sites like Politico or Huffington Post.
Before, we were told to look towards trusted sources - almost an act of blind faith. Today, we don't have that luxury. A major skill (habit?) we need to cultivate is the ability to decompose sources into facts and opinion, search for truth, form the most likely view, and update as new info surfaces. I'm not sure exactly how to do this - it could be an innate problem of humanity. If we can though, it will change the public discourse. This will change the outcomes, and those will change the world.
In today's world, and probably throughout time, people are always trying to live in the world of black and white. Are you Republican or Democrat? Pro-Choice or Pro-life? Every position is one side of a dichotomy. I used to be the same way, but I've been trying to train myself to leave these simplistic generalizations and live in the world of the grey.
There are seemingly very few absolutes in this world, so few that I question the concept of "facts" itself. Most people will claim this to be ridiculous, however other than pure math there are no examples of these types of absolutes. The best absolute I can think of takes the form of: 1+1 equals 2 (in a base 10 system in our universe), however this is comparatively a very rare thing and must be defined rigorously.
It's funny that "grey area" is a pejorative in today's parlance. I find these areas to be the most interesting ones, and in fact I find people that trying to look for black & white solutions to be intellectually immature (i.e. not wise). What else is the mark of unsophisticated thought but being uncomfortable with complexity and uncertainty?
The distinction must be made as well between thought and action. We must think in the grey, but in the end decisiveness is essence of action. It may be that disparate actions spread resources or it could be that humans in general view you as a risk because you're unpredictable due to the complexity of your position.
This is one reason sound bites are de rigueur in today's public discourse. No one wants to actually think about positions beyond us and them or right and wrong. This seems like a systematic failure of the market of ideas. It's a veritable bubble of improperly valued thought-forms (i.e. sound bytes) - at least if you believe the market of ideas if supposed to value thought by its correctness. Instead, it seems the market works on the virality of the memes themselves - which of course brings the discourse down to the lowest common denominator.
Is not the real problem then how to live in such as world - one valuing easy thought over rigorous thought - while still trying to use such rigorous thought to make more correct decisions? Such is the realm of informed pragmatism (pragmatic realism?) long term reflection and short term decisiveness.
One of my chief frustrations with wikis are the barriers between them and the zealous wiki editors. Wikipedia's tests of article relevance are fair, but aren't encouraging the formation of the sum of human knowledge. There is of course a trade-off between quantity and quality. If Wikipedia allowed me to make my personal page few people have an interest in keeping it accurate and really I have an interest in making myself look good.
Of course Wikipedia isn't alone - there are thousands of active wikis. One problem is that there are a lot of duplicate articles that are all written from different points of view, for different audiences, and in various degrees of depth. If I'm on Wikipedia, I'd like to be able to access the other articles because these other wikis are harder to find. The best attempt I can find is Wikia, but they only can have a fraction of the wikis, and there still aren't easy connections between them.
I've been thinking of how to solve this:
The easiest (and worst) way is to just copy the text from the article into the rest and allow everyone on the different wikis to edit the same text - of course this doesn't allow the article to address the proper audience, so that won't work.
I thought of maybe having parts of different wiki articles common between different wikis where Wikipedia article may be dynamically loaded in an iFrame between sites, but that gets messy very quickly.
There is a more elegant way that could largely solve the problem though. What I propose is the use the same mechanism used for language selection on the left sidebar. Why not just have all wiki articles linked a similar sidebar. This may be possible semantically using the URL or at least at first manually. Say I'm on the Wikipedia article for options, and I want to know more. I can just clickthrough to Investopedia's page for options which is like an intro page the massive topic of options.
Another possible way would be to have an in-wiki way of pulling pieces of other wikis into article subtopic. For instance, the Wikipedia article mentions the butterfly spread strategy and actually has a brief article on it. However, Investopedia has a very in-depth article about how to actually do it. You can even see a version of this in under option strategy section above. I just think it'd be great to have an easy way of including these articles amongst sites.
Overall, I love wikis and making knowledge more accessible, but I think something like this is needed to better serve the long tail of articles on other wikis - saving them from the pragmatic wiki zealots.
People today are also obsessed, rightly, with proper citation of thought. In the brave new world of the internet, we are all obliged to prove our sources - especially in a no-name blog such as this. Linking makes this easy, but we must ask exactly how accurate these supposed facts are. Further, we should probably question the idea of "facts" itself because it's too black and white to be useful - but that's for another post.
I get into a conversation about once a month about Wikipedia's accuracy compared to standard encyclopedias. I will then retort that a study showed Wikipedia to be bigger (~3.5M vs. ~250K articles) and about as good as Britannica. They'll often respond that this just can't be true because it can be changed by anyone and it changes all the time.
On the surface both points are certainly valid, however we first need to look at the purpose of encyclopedias to see what the real effects of this are. This overarching purpose is of course to provide a cursory primer of a topic that can be used by the general public - which the Citing Wikipedia article agrees with. You don't read Britannica to learn how to farm - you do it to learn what farming is. For this broad case of uses, there is no equal to Wikipedia.
Books like Wikinomics and The Wisdom of Crowds make a great case for community created / managed knowledge. That knowledge can be accumulated faster, cover a broader area, and update faster using such a system - impossible with any other system. What they often don't talk about is the very real problem of changing citation sources. You can't quote Wikipedia articles directly (as we're all guilty of) - you really need to define it in terms of which article you're referring to. This is why I'm sort of thinking that to encourage good citations, we should link to the past edits page of the page.
Here's an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citation&oldid=357673084.
There are a few issues though. Firstly, the URL above doesn't tell you much, unlike the very clean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation. Also, there may be issues with these pages getting hit more often because they're not really intended to be used this way. I'd like to see a URL like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation/2010/04/24 or similar that'd be an easy shorthand citation for website and papers - unlike the current blah MLA one:
"Citation." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 22 April 2010. Web. 24 April 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation>
Really, any non-Luddite knows that Wikipedia and such projects are hugely beneficial and here to stay after Brittanica is bankrupt and recycled. I'd just like to see features like this that make the site citeable.
I was having a discussion with my friend who's always been a good source of skepticism about my thinking - as I am to her's. The debate focuses on whether we need more feminine traits in society and also what exactly those would be.
From my point of view, generalizations about gender roles aren't very useful because there are many shades of gray between genders - it's not a dichotomy as anyone from the LGBT community would tell you. At the same time, those who say "there are only societal differences between men and women" are living in an idyllic fantasy. There are of course gender-linked (though again not dichotomous) traits in the way everyone develops physically and mentally, and of course these traits express themselves in society in productive and unproductive ways. The true question is what those ways are and which should be use / encouraged.
My friend encourages a revival of femininity because the balance has been in the men's favor since the dawn of civilization - though there is much evidence that women were far more equal in many paleolithic cultures. The question is what caused this bias, what has it done, and should/can it be reconciled.
In my friend's view, men are more left-brained (logical, etc.) than women, and the dominance of men has made this way of thinking dominant in society. The left/right brain theory is largely consider discredited - even so women would be more correlated to left-brainedness due to their better developed verbal skills (a strong left-linked activity). Let's instead call this
"men's thinking" logical instead of "left-brained".
I would argue though that the causality of this phenomenon is actually the reverse. Once civilization was established, logical thinking dominated because of its clear advantage to organizing and maintaining power in a complex civilization. Therefore men tipped the scales in their favor using a type of thinking they gained due to their neolithic role in coordinated hunting. Hence, men dominated early because their knowledge of coordination gave them an advantage to leading organized society - not to mention control over the major food source. Perhaps you could call this coordination logical or "masculine" thinking - though I'd say that's an oversimplification.
However, this balance currently looks to be tipping in the other direction. If we look at what Richard Florida called the "Rise of the Creative Class", we see that purely logical thinking is becoming a commodity and creative thinking is becoming the competitive advantage. Therefore, by the same logic, those (whatever gender) who possess creative abilities will become the dominate ones. In fact, it appears this is fast becoming the norm. Could the recently flourishing of various gender & sexuality-linked movements actually be the result of creativity becoming the driving competitive advantage within society? I can only speculate that creativity could be a factor.
Let me conclude by saying that creativity is not limited to things like art, writing, etc., but in fact it's more related to the concept of synthesis - taking current knowledge and creating novel implementations to solve a problem. This is the type of thinking that is fast becoming the dominant competitive advantage. All flavors of gender have these abilities, perhaps in different expressions, and this leads me to believe that the scale of gender equality will tilt more towards the center as the initial conditions that created the imbalance have largely passed in their influence.
Thoughts?