Jacob's Life

Seeking Truth and Fighting Deception

2018-03-12T12:18:00.000-05:00

I'm going to wax briefly philosophical and religious here, because we're having a discussion about truth, and how we can recognize it. Specifically, I'm going to make a case about spiritual truth vs. scientific truth, and spiritual means of discovering truth vs. scientific means. For anyone wondering, I am a scientist with a degree in Neuroscience and significant education in biology. I am also an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). So, my opinions tend to lie at the intersection of spirituality and scientific exploration. Without further ado:

I recently saw this news report, in which computer software is capable of realistically replacing images of one speaker with another:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/experts-warn-of-digitally-altered-video-becoming-weaponized/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab6a&linkId=49098070

I felt like I could tell that Tarkin (from Rogue One) was clearly computer graphics,

but I have a harder time recognizing these images as fakes.

Because our senses can be so easily fooled, truth is going to need to be actively mined by everyone.It's getting to the point where you can't just have an opinion that sounds nice, or feel comfortable. We're going to need to be proactive, assuming that our opinions are being manipulated, because people are using the best of technology and psychology to control what we agree with and fight against.

I'm not some doomsday-preaching, nihilist weirdo. I'm advocating for less gut reactions, less defensiveness of the thoughts that SEEM to come to us naturally, and more actively constructing what we believe and support. We need to SEEK truth, rather than comfortably sitting on what feels true. Feelings can help guide us, but feelings alone cannot be the basis of our conclusions. We need to accept that some things we hold to be true are actually false, and have been planted in our minds by manipulative, ill-willed forces. We must accept that we don't see the whole truth, and that our small piece of the pie will not feel comfortably complete, but it is better to hold onto that than to hold wild falsehoods that feel comfortable.

For those who feel that I am, as a religious individual, advocating "not seeking the Spirit," you are wrong. The "Spirit of Truth" known as the "Holy Ghost" does not teach us the truth of all things - this seems backwards, given the scripture that, out of context, plainly says "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." But the "all things" referred to are all things relating to God and spirituality. It is not all things scientific or all things political, or all things related to breakfast cereals. It's almost demeaning to God to believe that he has some sort of obligation to tell you what you should eat in the morning, unless there's some grander significance to that choice. The same is true with many issues where we ourselves are responsible for understanding and deciding, and where the divinely appointed purpose is for us to take responsibility for the outcomes of our own personal decisions.

In a similar vein, scientific truth, political truth, economic truth, spiritual truth, and so forth, do not overlap entirely with regard to how they are gained and how they are applied. Truth, overall, may be one whole, but that's not how we have access to it.

Some might argue the spiritual point that "all things are first spiritual, then physical" or that "the temporal is spiritual," and while that may be true, it doesn't apply so directly in this case. When you come to a math problem, you can't ask the Spirit to solve it for you, you must do the math yourself. To have God solve a math problem for you (or other complicated problems that require expertise and effort) is utterly lazy, sign-seeking, entitled miracle-demanding-when-work-is-enough, and frankly evil; the days are coming where that spiritually entitled attitude is going to be the downfall of many otherwise good people. We must put in the effort to find answers, not sit around hoping that the feelings we have come from God, as opposed to the many, many sources that would imitate truth, when in fact they have their own, powerful, potentially evil (or at the very least selfish and manipulative) agendas.

It is more important than ever to have a correct view of our spirituality, as well as how we know non-spiritual vs. spiritual truths, so "that we henceforth be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and their cunning and craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."

Embracing the Power of Our Medium: The Science of Video Game Psychology

2018-02-23T13:46:00.001-06:00

With recent debates where politicians try to attack something other than gun laws, a lot of people have found themselves defending video games. Articles do everything from casually state, “video games don’t cause violence” to mock outright those who still hold the idiotic, backwards belief that video games affect people. I don't believe that the solution to our gun problem lies in video games, mind you, but truth is truth.

The mantra that "science proves that video games don't affect people" is not only false, I find it somewhat offensive. One reason I love video games (and other entertainment) IS THAT they are so powerful.

I'm here to just vomit science all over my own spaces, so I don’t have to do it on anybody else’s. Science supports the idea that video games change people. Video games are internalized. Violent video games, especially those where you play anti-heroes, cause people to internalize aggression, including misogynistic beliefs.

Before I start, let me clarify up front that I’m cherry-picking to make a point, which is a relevant thing to be doing. There are articles about the relationship between drug use and video games, about the health-related implementation of video games, about video game preferences changing with age, and, yes, even about how video games don’t increase violent behavior. However, cherry-picking is NOT hard in this case, and the sample I’m providing IS representative of the overall conclusion that science has come to at this point. You will find one article that fails to prove a connection for every dozen or more that do prove a connection, and the majority of articles that suggest no connection are opinion articles that do not provide any data of their own. A not-insignificant proportion of them demonstrate that autistic children are not at particular risk.

An entirely separate field of study is how young people and gamers are primed to be defensive about video games, and have difficulty assimilating new evidence FOR the effects of violent video games. I’ll not be including those articles here. To my gamer friends: embrace the true power of your medium.

A non-exhaustive list of supporting primary scientific articles and their conclusions (from the NCBI):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151190/
“In sum, the current research supports the perspective that MRRG gameplay can have consequences for deviant behavior broadly defined by affecting the personality, attitudes, and values of the player.”
(MRRG stands for “mature-rated, risk-glorifying”)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4830454/
“Our results supported the prediction that playing violent-sexist video games increases masculine beliefs, which occurred for male (but not female) participants who were highly identified with the game character. Masculine beliefs, in turn, negatively predicted empathic feelings for female violence victims.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5332106/
“These results provided only inconsistent support for the disengagement hypothesis, suggesting that participants found it difficult to separate a neutral face from a crowd of emotional faces.”
(Yes, this one’s weak, but it’s positive, not negative.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4229070/
“These findings suggest that both playing violent video games online and offline compared to playing neutral video games increases aggression.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5346125/
“...for children playing approximately 8 h or more per week, frequent competitive gaming may be a risk factor for decreasing prosocial behavior”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4227415/
“Our findings indicate that there is an association between daily exposure to violent video games and number of depressive symptoms among preadolescent youth.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140725/
“Physicians and parents should appreciate that T-rated video games may be a source of exposure to violence and some unexpected content for children and adolescents, and that the majority of T-rated video games provide incentives to the players to commit simulated acts of violence.”
(This one doesn’t make a judgment call about the violence or its effects, it merely dispassionately pointed out that, while some people don’t expect serious violence in T-rated games, it is there. So, perhaps a bit of a tangent, but still related.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5374198/
“Controlling for gender and socioeconomic level, results showed that video game exposure and religiosity were both related to sexism.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29093050
“The vast majority of laboratory-based experimental studies have revealed that violent media exposure causes increased aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiologic arousal, hostile appraisals, aggressive behavior, and desensitization to violenceand decreases prosocial behavior (eg, helping others) and empathy.”
(This is a review, not primary literature, but it’s a scientific review, not a popular media article. For those unaware of what this means, this is of a peer-reviewed quality, and capable of being quoted in primary literature. Basically, when enough primary research has been done, people evaluate the research overall and write scientific evaluations called reviews.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28221065
“Consistent with the literature that we reviewed, we found that violent video game exposure was associated with: an increased composite aggression score; increased aggressive behavior; increased aggressive cognitions; increased aggressive affect, increased desensitization, and decreased empathy; and increased physiological arousal. The size of the effects was similar to that in prior meta-analyses, suggesting a stable result. “
(This is the official APA taskforce in 2017, which is a huge deal. They don’t make statements like this lightly.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26880037
“Social dominance orientation and hostile sexism predicted higher levels of both sexual harassment and general harassment in online games. Game involvement and hours of weekly gameplay were additional predictors of general harassment.”
(This is referring to online harassment by males within the games that they’re playing.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26855192
“The FC patterns revealed a decrease in connectivity within 6 brain networks during the violence-related compared to the non-violence-related condition: three sensory-motor networks, the reward network, the default mode network (DMN), and the right-lateralized frontoparietal network. Playing violent racing games may change functional brain connectivity, in particular and even after controlling for event frequency, in the reward network and the DMN.”
(FC stands for functional connectivity.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26652675
“This suggests that individuals who play many hours of action VGs may be more capable of lethal self-harm if they experience suicide ideation, although this association does not exist for individuals who play other categories of VGs.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26587734
“The results of the present study imply that how a violent video game is played through different interfaces can magnify the intensity of postgame aggressive thoughts on top of already increased aggression due to trait-level hostility.”
(This one is really interesting, and demonstrates all sorts of interesting things. Two examples: People who play lots of video games are more readily able to identify with video game characters of new games, thus increasing enjoyment of new games. Also, input methods for video games (such as controllers) alter the intensity of postgame outcomes.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26386004
“Despite a variety of methodological weaknesses in his meta-analysis, Ferguson (2015, this issue) presents evidence to support the positive association between violent media consumption and a number of poor developmental outcomes.”
(This one is merely a commentary, but a commentary by a group of scientific experts toward scientists, not a popular media article toward potential customers. It is significant because it is one of many scientific responses to an article where one scientist (Ferguson) did a meta-analysis that was intended to demonstrate that there was only weak correlation between violence in games and poor developmental outcomes. Turns out that he done messed up.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26299393
“Violent video game players recognized fearful faces both more accurately and quickly and disgusted faces less accurately than non-gamers.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26181802
“Findings suggest that gameplaying with a sexualized woman may increase adolescents' acceptance of rape myths and tolerance for sexual harassment.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26121373
“Reward structures selectively affected in-game aggression, whereas narrative context selectively affected postgame aggression. Players who enacted in-game violence through a heroic character exhibited less postgame aggression than players who enacted comparable levels of in-game violence through an antiheroic character.”
(To put this plainly, if you’re playing a badass, you are more likely to have postgame aggression.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25803312
“Results indicate that taking what participants perceive to be the more moral mind-set in the video game predicts more antisocial behavior on the first task, but more pro-social behavior on the next task.”
(This one is complicated, but definitely demonstrates that video games affect us afterward.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25681166
“We found support for the hypothesized cultivation model, indicating a relationship between video game consumption and RMA via interpersonal aggression and hostile sexism”
(RMA stands for “rape myth acceptance”)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25455576
“It was concluded that exposure to violent video games increases the relative risk of desensitization to violence, which in turn may increase aggression and decrease prosocial behavior.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25043905
“Consistent with priming theory, results showed that both male and female participants who played a violent game as a male avatar behaved more aggressively afterwards than those who played as female avatar. The priming effects of the male avatar were somewhat stronger for male participants...”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24464267
“Consistent with the predictions of social-cognitive, observational learning theory, this study supports the hypothesis that carrying weapons to school is associated with violent game play.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24458215
“Whereas violent video games increase aggression and aggression-related variables and decrease prosocial outcomes, prosocial video games have the opposite effects. These effects were reliable across experimental, correlational, and longitudinal studies, indicating that video game exposure causally affects social outcomes and that there are both short- and long-term effects.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24085715
“In fact, a correlational study revealed that violent video game exposure was positively related to ethnocentrism. This relation remained significant when controlling for trait aggression. Providing causal evidence, an experimental study showed that playing a violent video game increased aggressive behavior, and that this effect was more pronounced when the target was an outgroup rather than an ingroup member.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24335350
“ Prosocial-media use was positively associated with helping. This effect was mediated by empathy and was similar across cultures. .... Path analyses showed significant longitudinal effects of prosocial- and violent-video-game use on prosocial behavior through empathy. Latent-growth-curve modeling for the 2-year period revealed that change in video-game use significantly affected change in helping, and that this relationship was mediated by change in empathy.”
(This one is a little backwards, cause it’s pointing out that playing positive games increases positive behavior. Because video games ARE AWESOME!!)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23951954
“Taken together, it appears that being helpful while playing video games leads to the perception of being more human, whereas being harmful while playing video games leads players to perceive themselves negatively.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23745616
This one rambles about its conclusion a bit. Basically, when you believe that your character is a hero (Superman or a generic “warm and empathic” character) fighting for good, you are more likely to follow gaming with prosocial behavior. Believing that you’re a bad guy (Joker or his generic bad counterpart) resulted in participants judging others as more hostile. They close, ”This is in line with previous findings that empathy may not be positive per se. In fact, it may backfire depending on the interaction of game characters and the empathy players feel for them.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23650097
“Thus, violent video games that are framed in an explicitly prosocial context may evoke more prosocial sentiments and thereby mitigate some of the short-term effects on aggression observed in previous research. … aggressive behavior was not completely eliminated by the inclusion of a prosocial context for the violence.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23253205
“Exposure to violent online games was associated with being a perpetrator as well as a perpetrator-and-victim of cyberbullying.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23097053
“As expected, violent video game players had lower cardiac coherence levels and higher aggression levels than did nonviolent game players. Cardiac coherence, in turn, was negatively related to aggression.”
(Cardiac coherence is the synchronization of breathing with heart rate.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22766175
“Results showed that exposure to GTA predicted higher levels of moral disengagement. Recency of exposure had a primary impact on the considered mechanisms of moral disengagement.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22550147
“By employing a Solomon Four-Group experimental research design, this exploratory study found that a video game depicting sexual objectification of women and violence against women resulted in statistically significant increased rape myths acceptance (rape-supportive attitudes) for male study participants but not for female participants.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22549724
“Prosocial games reduced state hostility and increased positive state affect. Violent video games had the opposite effects. These effects were moderated by trait physical aggression. Altruistic participants reported relatively more positive affect and less state hostility. Egoistic participants reported relatively more aggravated and mean feelings.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489544
“The social context of game play influenced subsequent behavior more than the content of the game that was played.”
(This means that players who worked together in the game were more willing to work together outside the game than players who were competitive in the game. Game design matters as much as content.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22302216
“Discussion highlights how violent video gaming is associated with lower levels of prosocial behavior through the mechanism of decreased empathic concern, how this association can affect prosocial behavior differently across target, and finally what implications this might have for development during emerging adulthood.”

AND THERE’S A TON MORE! I’m just getting tired of listing these. But hopefully this’ll help people to be a bit skeptical when they see those popular articles that make fun of people for believing video games affect us. Video games are the most powerful art medium of all time.

Why the pinnacle of modern technology has failed me.

2018-02-20T14:47:00.001-06:00

I've long been a fan of diet soda. "Diet soda is the pinnacle of modern technology," I sometimes say. Well, recently my mother-in-law informed me that diet soda is bad for you. I've heard people ranting about problems with diet soda for a long time - a lot of nonsense about a lot of different problems that it might cause. I think a lot of that has come from the history of artificial sweeteners, which isn't so spotless.

Well, I've heard it before, so I wasn't surprised to hear her say that diet soda was bad for you. However, I don't tend to think of her as being a "bandwagon" sort of person, so I decided to see where science currently is on the subject of diet sodas.

Apparently, she wins.

Research suggests that people gain a couple pounds when they use diet sodas over not using sodas, and only extremely obese individuals lose weight by changing from regular to diet sodas in their diet. One article suggests that the reasons for diet soda being unhealthy are overcompensation for expected caloric restriction, as well as alteration of food preferences due to the extreme sweetness of the sweeteners. Another demonstrated that aspartame's inhibition of intestinal alkaline phosphatase enhances glucose intolerance (a chief factor of diabetese) - basically, diet sodas might be contributing to diabetes in a very different way than regular sodas.

Now, aspartame is falling out of favor due to reports of it causing cancer in rats (it hasn't been shown to cause cancer in humans), so sucralose is the up-and-coming sweetener for diet sodas. While experts seem to feel that sucralose is healthier than aspartame, research suggests that sucralose is "not biologically inert" with effects like alterations in blood levels of glucose, insulin, and other molecules important to glucose intolerance.

What I think this all means: I'm no longer able to call diet soda the pinnacle of modern technology, for which I am deeply saddened. I'll have to drink it in moderation, instead of guzzling it like I just don't care.

Some of the sources I reviewed:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3856475/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4661066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5686455/
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-diet-pepsi-with-sucralose-healthier-than-aspartame-2015-04-24

Fluorens's Error - a bedtime story about neuroscientists.

2018-01-17T12:36:00.000-06:00

Brains are organized and efficient. They're massively complex, but scientists have been hard at work for a very, very long time trying to figure out how they work. As much as 7000 years ago, people used to perform trepanation, the boring of a hole into someone's skull to cure them of who-knows-what. The history of neuroscience continues on to the greeks, with Hippocrates; to the Romans, with Galen; to the Renaissance, with Andreas Vesalius; and so forth and so on. Obviously, these few individuals I've mentioned do not constitute the whole of historic work on the brain.

One historic researcher, Marie-Jean-Pierre Fluorens, was an advocate of a particular idea about brain functioning. Fluorens believed that the structure of the brain was related to its function. He provided solid experimental evidence that the cerebellum was used in coordination, and that the cerebrum was involved in sensation and perception. While others had made such hypotheses, Fluorens used ablative techniques (damaging specific areas) to prove empirically that it was true.

Franz Joseph Gall, like Fluorens, believed that structure was related to function. He said that the bumpy brain structures (gyri) were related to behavior, and that bumps on the head were related to the bumps on the brain. Thus, he invented a pop-pseudo-science known as phrenology. Gall and his colleagues had data to back up the idea, but it wasn't very good. More or less, they measured people's heads, and then correlated their personality traits to the various shapes on their head.

Fluorens found this psuedo-science to be preposterous, and his reaction was a bit over-the-top. He actively argued against Gall and against phrenology. He demonstrated that the skull's shape was not strongly correlated with the brain's shape. Fluorens also provided additional ablative evidence that personality traits were not isolated to the neural structures under the skull regions suggested by Gall. Fluorens concluded that the brain did not localize functions, and instead acted as one big processing machine.

Fluorens's conclusion makes me a little sad. Modern neuroscience is well aware that different brain regions have different functions, despite a great deal of overlap and interdependency. The frontal cortex is involved in planning and inhibition, the motor cortex is involved in movement, the somatosensory cortex is involved in sensation, the parietal cortex is involved in association and interpretation, the visual cortex is involved in seeing, and this is just scratching the surface. (I can't help but humorously point out that all of these structures are on the surface of the brain, the cortex, so we really are just scratching the surface.)

But my sorrow is not because Fluorens was wrong. I'm saddened by the fact that Fluorens was right. He was right about the cerebellum and cerebrum, and function following form. However, at some point, Fluorens made a shift from proving things to be true to disproving the pseudo science. This shift resulted in his final false conclusion. I'm saddened that his passion for fighting what was wrong overpowered his passion for proving what was right.

For many years now, I've known this story of Fluorens, and I occasionally share it. I call it the story of Fluorens's error. His error was not his final conclusion. We make Fluorens's error by expending our energy to fight against something, instead of fighting for something.

Three things that are not debates, but battles between ignorance and knowledge

2017-04-04T09:51:00.000-05:00

Vaccines

Is this still a debate?

I recently saw a friend post about vaccines and autism... again; I thought we shut this down in 2012 or so. Someone sited a statistic that 1 in 50 vaccinations results in autism, and that by 2030, 1 in 2 children will have autism due to vaccines. Besides being absurd (why would the number increase with time? Are we developing vaccines that are better at causing autism?) it's also unsupported by any respectable science. Because of the popularity of the issue, scientists have repeatedly done studies to identify a causative connection between vaccines and autism. It has been proven repeatedly that there is no connection.

People like to say, "But you can't prove that there's no connection, you only prove that you didn't find one." Fair enough. There's also no way to absolutely prove gravity exists - maybe things falling to earth is a coincidence that appears to be gravity. But we're so sure of the importance of vaccination that it's baffling that this terrifying correlation is still being propagated. Terrifying, in that it's scaring people into making dangerous decisions about their children.

Then there's the question of whether parents should be able to choose to vaccinate their kids. I'm not going to get into the religious debate, where people belong to an established religion that doesn't allow vaccination... I just think that's a more tough debate. But in most cases, it should be considered child neglect to neglect vaccination. You don't just decide, "I don't want to feed my kids this week." You can't just do that. "I don't want them to wear clothes. What's wrong with nakedness at school?" You can't do that. As a parent, yes, you make decisions about your child. But when those decisions result in demonstrably dangerous outcomes, we call it neglect or abuse.

If your response is, "But vaccines haven't been PROVEN to help." or "But if some people don't vaccinate it's okay." or "I know what's best for my child." Then, apologies, but you're ignorant - I know you want to list all these anecdotes, all these "studies" and articles that support your side. But you're ignorant for choosing and believing those sources. Search for a single article that supports your case on www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (National Center for Biotechnology Information, associated with Pubmed) or the New England Journal of Medicine. You won't find one. In contrast there are thousands (if not tens of thousands) of studies that support the science behind vaccination. The rare studies that seem to support anti-vaccination have all been either debunked or explained by other means, such as concerns over thiomerosal, which, if I'm not mistaken, isn't in vaccines anymore anyhow. And if you think this is some sort of government conspiracy that is manipulating scientists, then I just can't help you. Cars drive forward, electricity powers lights, medicine cures more diseases every decade. Thanks, science.

But, assuming you accept modern scientific discoveries...Vaccines have been proven to help significantly, eliminating extremely dangerous diseases, reducing the burden of many other diseases, and improving the lives of millions. In contrast, the dangers of SOME people choosing not to vaccinate is evident in the fact that dangerous diseases that were almost eliminated returned when vaccination rates fell off. While "herd immunity" is a real and supported scientific concept, the conclusion from herd immunity is that we should all get vaccinated to protect those who can't. The conclusion is not "it doesn't matter if we get vaccinated."

We give children vaccines for dangerous diseases that can be easily prevented with little to no consequences - diseases that, without vaccines, would be somewhat common and quite horrifying.

If you think that I am just ignorantly following the masses, you are absolutely wrong. I do not passively choose to have my children vaccinated. I don't consider the decision difficult, but I made the decision based on the unarguably solid stance that modern science has taken on this issue. I am not looking to one doctor who, for whatever reason, decides that they want to fight against vaccines. I do not look to anecdotal evidence. I look to the gold standards of medical care in 2017. Gold standards that have been proven over and over during the course of more than a hundred years of concentrated scientific efforts... based on over a thousand years of scientific discoveries. In contrast, those so-called anti-vaxxers are making terrifying choices based on a fad, a few stories, and even a few would-be scientists who believe they can get rich off of fear and ignorance.

If you're a friend who is considering your stance, recognize that children have suffered from diseases since time immemorial, which we have cured by vaccines. To fight against vaccination is to fight against healthy children. I sincerely plead that you get off the popular anti-vaccine bandwagon (which should have broken down years ago).

If you're a random stranger who considers yourself an anti-vaxxer... just move along. You're as likely to convince me you're right as you are to convince me that I have no skin. It would be much easier to convince me that the moon landing of 1969 was faked.
As long as we keep going with these silly arguments about the basic importance of vaccination, it becomes harder to hear serious arguments about how to improve vaccination procedures and production, and ensure relevant safety measures as technology advances. There are real issues at hand. Let's move forward.

A reliable, scientific source for information on vaccines is the CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

What about the evidence of children who have very serious adverse events?

Another friend posted a very sad video of a child having a seizure, recently. I believe I've seen it before (2 years ago?) by a friend who might be considered an anti-vaxxer. I'll be responding to this sad video under the assumption that people watching this video are moved by empathy to avoid causing children and their parents pain.

There's a difference between a mistake and an error. An error is when we do something wrong, and we should have known it was wrong - it is a miscalculation on our part, and the correct course of action was calculable. A mistake is incorrect primarily in the context of the outcome. It can also be an error, or it can be merely a mistake. That is, we can do something wrong because we calculated it wrong (error), and then we feel badly about the outcome (mistake). However, sometimes we calculate everything correctly and do exactly what is right (no error), but the outcome is still bad due to our choices (mistake).

Vaccinations can have extremely rare serious negative side effects, but they are treating diseases that would not be extremely rare if it weren't for vaccines. When we vaccinate, we have what can be seen as a rare mistake, when we ought not have vaccinated a particular child. But unless we knew in advance that the child would have such a reaction, it would not be an error to vaccinate them. Of course, everything changes once we know how they'll react. And the importance of vaccinating everyone becomes doubly important once we find those who MUST be protected by herd immunity rather than personal vaccination.

The video is sad. However, the equivalent video would be a bloodbath of unmeasurable proportions if we were to see the world with nobody vaccinating. Even a world with 50% vaccinating... it would be a terror unlike our generation generally witnesses. The world before vaccines was rampant with death from diseases that are now rare.

If we saw a video with five unvaccinated children infected with smallpox, and watched it through to the end, we would eventually see the cold, limp, lifeless body of four of those children, and it might haunt our dreams to know that we could have prevented those deaths. Indeed, it is a true miracle that smallpox has been conquered by vaccines. What other diseases can we eliminate?

Unless you KNOW otherwise, to vaccinate is never an error, and so giving parents the option to make an error out of fear of the rare mistake is not wise. This is inhumane for two reasons: 1) the child should be given the wisest choice, regardless of the parents ability to reason medically and 2) if the parent makes the wrong choice, whether it’s an error or a mistake, they will bear the psychological burden of causing the outcome.

Although it occasionally turns out to be a serious mistake to vaccinate (remember, that just means the outcomes were undesirable), to make the alternative choice (the error) would result in millions upon millions of mistakes of equal or greater severity.

Climate change

Because of "An Inconvenient Truth" this became a political issue instead of a scientific one. However, the only thing that matters in deciding if this is true is what science has to say about it. The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the fact that mankind has caused an unprecedented change in greenhouse gasses. The ensuing change in climate may seem small at this point, but even if mankind's contributions were suddenly eliminated from the earth, it will take far, far longer than our lives or the lives of our children to reverse these changes.

A reliable, scientific source on climate change is the EPA.
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/climate-change-basic-information

And here's NASA.gov on the issue.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Feminism (but not all feminism)

Now, to be fair, there are extreme forms of feminism, and knowing if you're talking to someone who has an academic understanding or an angry ignorance is not always easy. Both are able to spout out facts, and both have strong interest in improving the lives of women (and, frankly, both can be enfuriated by the state of things). Given that my understanding of feminism is primarily self-taught (textbooks, internet searches for quality sources, lots of introspection and contemplation), I do not have sufficient background knowledge to perfectly recognize who are the experts and who are the excessives. However, I have come up with a metric that I believe works most of the time: people whose feminism is primarily about how terrible men are don't get feminism, whereas feminists who have compassion for men get it. The reason why this works is not because the former make me feel bad and the latter do not (though this is true). The reason this works is because feminism (academic, educated feminism) is not about men vs. women, it's about humanity. The fact is that women have been (and in an uncomfortably large number of cases continue to be) treated poorly and there are structures that continue to be in place that do not have their best interest in mind. But the principles of feminism would also protect men if the tables were reversed on a grand level. Men and women everywhere should become educated in egalitarian feminism and seek to promote healthy feminist causes, which in most cases (given where our modern systems derived from) is a very pro woman agenda.

For a man who once thought feminism was quite odd, I've had a surprising number of online arguments with men who I've decided have some fear of being impotent. They swear at me and call me a social justice warrior and a white knight, neither of which should be insults, but neither of which really categorize me correctly. My opinions do not fit into the box of social justice, and they are not formed in order to feel good about myself in relationship to women. My opinions are formed through critical thinking and observation of facts. I can be swayed by facts, though I don't merely trust everything every stranger throws out as factual. Indeed, my opinion on feminism is the opposite of what it once was, and the event that changed my mind: I read a textbook chapter that described feminism dispassionately.

In my opinion, feminism is NOT the radical notion that women are people. It is the radical notion that people are people, and it benefits women (and is called feminism) because women have been treated like they aren't people for so surprisingly long. Feminism is only about women because history has forced it to be so. The principles of feminism are universal truths, which seem drastically slanted because our history has been drastically slanted, but if history had been different, the core values of egalitarian feminism would still be true. Note that there are many sub-types of feminism, and for many of them, this is not the case. Some forms of feminism are not worth pursuing, and frankly give feminism a bad name.

Furthermore, a true knowledge of feminism does not necessarily lead one to action any more than a knowledge of gravity does. However, if one is to build a rocket, a knowledge of gravity is essential. And if one is to build a truly moral society, a knowledge of egalitarian feminism is critical.

Some men and women have latched on to anti-feminist movements. While, in some cases (not all), their intent seems reasonable, the fact is that the movements are missing the point of feminism. As just a brief example, this image suggests that this woman doesn't need feminism because men care about her and respect her and aren't pigs. However, that doesn't have any bearing on whether the principles of egalitarian feminism are true or not. The fact is that this woman, and the wonderful men in her life, probably believe those truths, which is why she so comfortably "doesn't need feminism." It seems to me that such movements are not responding to the academic principles of egalitarian feminism, but to the man-haters who pose as feminists to strengthen their position.

Sure, the minutia of what exactly is wrong and how to fix it can be debated. Also, many things that try to benefit from the label of feminism are not true (and in my opinion not even truly feminist). But the "debate" about whether feminism is right - that's a battle being waged between ignorance and education. And in this battle, the ignorance of the correct side harms it almost as much as the ignorance of the opposing view. Feminism is not a club or a political party - it is an ideology, a collection of truths that have no owner, but which could benefit society if we stop claiming or fighting them and start finding ways to live them.

If these things aren't debates, then why are people still debating them?

To be blunt, people are ignorant. This is not merely an insult. Some people are not in possession of the facts necessary for discussing these topics. They're stuck on popular views that are fully debunked by an accurate knowledge of the world. Could there possibly be something true within those views worth holding on to? Sure, but the views overall are so destructive that it is akin to allowing your house to burn down because you can roast hot-dogs and marshmallows in the fire. Vaccines save lives. Climate change is putting our entire world in danger. Feminism is poised to create a humanity that is deeply moral in their interactions toward each other - it is the best scientific solution to all forms of hate. We need to stop wasting time debating these non-opinions, and start spending time furthering our understanding of how these truths matter.

Why gamers need to stop arguing that video games don't affect them

2017-03-11T14:43:00.000-06:00

"Article on internet interprets science so that experts don't need to."

I'm neither for nor against anything in this argument, but I feel like arguments where people are significantly biased are hardly worth investigating or discussing with the general public. See, people will believe whatever they want - I'm sure I'm not the only person who has witnessed this phenomenon online.

Although it doesn't completely discredit any individual study entirely, the article that prompted this blog entry was published in a questionable journal, and was cherry-picked by the author of an internet article because its conclusion inspires a particular feeling within the intended reader. It massages the ego of the readership, and makes them want to return for more confirmation of their world view.

I play video games - odds are I play more than you do, dear reader. In some ways, I'd like to think that my empathy was "unaffected" by video games, but that seems pretty unrealistic - in some ways nonsensical. How do you even measure empathy at a given moment? You can't assign it a value! Consider what it means to be "unaffected" - not only that you lose no "empathy-units" while playing, but that your alternative activity would have provided no increase in empathy.

What if you would have spent some time caring for the elderly, or deepening relationships with family members, or doing community service, or developing a social hobby? Not that these are entirely mutually exclusive from playing video games, mind you. Or, consider how one video game might actively teach people to take actions that are non-empathetic, while another specifically focuses on teaching empathy. I have seen interesting games designed with this in mind as part of health-related video game design competitions.

One tries to instill the idea that everyone is important, and our differences make us strong.

One teaches that sometimes our internal dialogue about other people is not accurate.

One encourages you to consider the plight of schizophrenics. The main character is not merely schizophrenic, but the game attempts to develop empathy within the player for the character.

Personally, I feel like video games are merely a medium for communicating, like any other medium. But video games are very powerful in ways that other mediums aren't. As a medium, it incorporates every potential of writing, of movies, of music, and more.

So, why the heck are gamers so interested in proving that we remain unaffected by them? "My games are boring and don't touch me on anything but a superficial level." What kind of terrible game... What kind of terrible art... Why even play? Go rake some leaves or shovel some snow if it's really all the same to you.

Which leads me to believe that most gamers trying to prove that they're not affected by video games haven't really thought it through. Perhaps they feel a hint of guilt, because there's some kind of stigma associated with gaming.

"Reading - that's for smart people. Gaming - that's for jerks and know-nothing time wasters."

"Playing video games? Go outside! Reading? Oh, now you're good, stay inside and do nothing in this case."

Maybe gamers have defensiveness ingrained because of how they feel their hobby is perceived by others.

Inasmuch as video games are not the deepest, most educating, most moving experiences available, it is due to the fact that the game creators have not made them so. Hey, that's quotable.

Do you think that players of team games (Counter-Strike: GO, or DoTA 2, or LoL) have not actually learned something about teamwork (or at least that they should have) after hundreds of hours of working in small teams to accomplish challenging goals? Do you think that players of management games (Civilization, Total War, Mount & Blade, Cities: Skylines) haven't developed some organizational habits that might matter in the real world?

If you're interested, check out the links to those games to see some examples representing teamwork and organization in those games. Just briefly scan through the linked guide to Cities: Skylines, and it'll baffle you how much organization it takes to follow. Consider how the author of that guide, who describes himself as a student of planning, states, "For me, this is not just a game. This is city building." Anyhow, back to the topic at hand.

If we accept all the positive learning that occurs, then how does it make any sense to say that games that glorify violence and crime, like Doom, Grand Theft Auto, and Payday don't educate people as well. They don't make you suddenly a violent criminal any more than Sim City makes you suddenly a glorious guru of city planning. But there is something that is learned, possibly something transferable. There was a time when gamers were really excited to tout the glorious improvement in hand-eye coordination provided by action games. When people began to respond, "Yeah, but... why do you need that specifically?" the extolling stopped and the gamers went back underground until research started proving other things that were beneficial... but OBVIOUSLY nothing detrimental.

The whole argument appears to simply be a defense of gamers' feelings. Although their feelings do matter, and non-gamers might be utterly careless and unconcerned with the future of gaming, the truth isn't found by being merely defensive and self-affirming.

Just the feeling that "I'm the same person" before and after playing a game doesn't really address the issue... or frankly mean anything, because we're all limited to our own perspective in the reality we live in (n = 1).

Shaming male birth control study participants is wrong in more ways than one.

2016-11-03T11:58:00.002-05:00

Am I seriously posting about this thing again? I guess so. I've mentioned this topic a few times on social media.

Lots of articles are reporting on this drug trial where the wimpy man-things gave up on birth control because it gave them oh-so-well-known side-effects. Most of the articles and web commentary are getting it wrong because, hey, it's fun to talk trash about men. The most recent article I read gets at least 2 things absolutely wrong:
1) "96% effective" only appears to be similar to other birth control methods if your math skills are limited to addition and subtraction. It's more than twice as bad as condoms alone, where user error ruins the effectiveness significantly. Modern IUDs are almost 100% effective; when they don't work is when they fall out unnoticed. Even female hormonal birth control is more than 99% effective. This new drug was, like... 10 to 100 (maybe 1000) times more likely to mess up than those traditional methods. It is a lot harder to reduce sperm count to 0 with reasonable hormone doses than to stop ovulation. 4 couples on birth control got pregnant during the "efficacy phase" of this study! I hope they were looking to have children.
2) "The effects of injections were completely reversible..." except for the guys who say they became impotent and haven't yet recovered. Oh, and the 5% of participants whose spermatogenesis didn't return to normal for 52 weeks until the scientists stopped watching.

In the end, the female partners responded that they "wouldn't use this form of birth control again" 20% MORE frequently than the males who were actually using it. You might think that percentage would be understandably elevated by the women who got pregnant, but the study doesn't delineate which participants said what.

I wish people would stop acting like this is super-duper obvious, and start appreciating that there were 320 men who tried a new method of birth control that had seriously troubling side-effects, and 75% of them are rearing for more pain when the drug trials resume. The only thing they had to gain was taking the burden of birth control off of women, which is pretty selfless. An ounce of compassion in return, please?

The only thing that actually bothers me are the sexist, inaccurate, anti-male reports that are flooding the internet. The sarcasm, and dare I say it, the misandry... it's just plain unwarranted. Perhaps it's what increases your viewership or makes you the most money, but it's also wrong on many levels. No self-respecting feminist would give in to this kind of demeaning, hate-derived social commentary. Especially against volunteers who should be seen as pioneers.

Interactive education about Islam is a good thing

2015-12-16T19:10:00.001-06:00

I recently read an article that complained about a school having children copy calligraphy during a lesson on the culture of Islam:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/15/students-practice-calligraphy-by-writing-there-is-no-god-but-allah.html

I realize that this may be disturbing to some people. However, I personally see it as good education - play is the best way to learn. No child is going to know what that text says - it's just calligraphy to them. But, personally, I think it would be even better if they DID know what it said. We're talking about educating people, not indoctrinating them. Understanding what others believe is not a bad thing!!!

They let the kids draw calligraphy, try on hijab-like head coverings, and learn about the geography and culture.

The article states (in what comes across as outrage), "In other words, there were more than likely a few Christian teenagers in that room who had no idea they were writing, 'There is no god but Allah.' But the school district doesn’t seem to think that’s a problem."

It is NOT a problem. There is no Christian belief that prohibits learning about other cultures. Nobody was asked to recite any belief sacred to Islam... but why should we live in a world where we're afraid to know or even memorize alternative beliefs?

I hope that my kids are lucky enough to have teachers who make learning interactive; who present a safe environment for considering what the world is like; who help my children to challenge their preconceived notions; who open their minds to complicated issues. Personally, I WANT my children to really understand all the world.

Someone might make the argument that this is akin to showing children pornography as a means of helping them understand what pornographers are doing. I guess I can see where you're coming from, except that you and I see either pornography or Islam very differently. I tend to think it's the latter, and that Islam (the religion of 23% of the world) deserves more respect.

Communication and disagreeing

2015-12-15T21:03:00.002-06:00

People have debated about what makes humans stand out among creatures on earth. One ecologist friend of mine argued that it was the magnitude of our many talents. Some people argue that it is our use of tools. And, you guessed it, some argue that it is our ability to communicate.

Communication affects our every day lives. We communicate with our bosses, our children, our parents, our friends, our lovers. Some communication is verbal, other is non-verbal.

I've been really stressed lately about a lot of things (I'm on the up-slope of a hill in my life, right now). So, today I got in an argument that rattled me a bit, and it got me thinking about communication. The fight may as well have been about which fruit was the tastiest, or how big an elephant can grow on a particular diet... and I don't know who raised their voice first, but there we were shouting at the top of our lungs, interrupting each other. Ignoring each other at the very same time that we were giving each other our full attention.

What disturbed me most was that once the fight escalated, it was no longer about what was right. Even though I'd like to say that I was fighting to prove a point that was correct... the reality is that by the time we had our voices raised, we had both made up our minds. And we were both angry.

Now, I raise my voice in excitement pretty often. I raise my voice because there's a lot of noise in a room, or I'm emotionally invested in the topic I'm discussing. But I very rarely raise my voice out of anger, or as some weird way of proving my point (because whoever talks the loudest and most is right, right??) I don't often do that, despite my willingness to debate most any topic.

So, I did a quick search online, looking for a good way to tone down an escalated argument, without simply withdrawing. I worry that withdrawing might imply that I don't care about the argument, or the person I'm arguing with. Obviously, there comes a point where withdrawing is on the table, but I would hate for it to be a means of disrespecting the other person or their opinion.

I found these suggestions:
1) Agree with them - instead of rapidly describing all the reasons they're wrong, state their case as reasonably as you're able. This does a few really useful things.
First, it keeps you from ignoring them - it helps you truly listen.
Second, it communicates to them that you care about their opinion. Of course you care about their opinion, or you wouldn't be wasting your time with them... but they should feel that.
Thirdly, if you're unable to find anything reasonable about their point of view, odds are you haven't truly considered it. By taking the time to clarify their argument, you consider the truth behind it.

2) Don't escalate further - Arguments aren't really worth ending a friendship or ending a marriage. If arguing is really going to end your friendship, you'd be better off mute around the person (and, indeed, one site pointed out that nobody gets angry about how you're listening to them too well). But any two people who show respect for each other can have healthy disagreements. The problems arise when you decide you WANT to fight. You WANT to make them angry. You WANT to win more than you want to converse or find truth. But, 99.9% of the time, it just doesn't matter as much as your friendship!

3) Change your argument - The reality is that every discussion has underlying messages. What is your underlying message? Is the message, "I want you to respect me" or "I'm feeling worried about X, Y, or Z" or "I want to help you" or "I had a fun idea"? Cause the points being argued about may not be the underlying issues. Pause, take a breath, and state what is underneath the argument (in a non-accusatory fashion, of course). Make your intentions known, not your argument. And, if your intentions turn out to be dumb, fess up to yourself that you're being dumb. "Ok... so basically I want to be seen as superior. That's dumb, I'd better stop acting like this toward her." or "My whole point here is that I'm an independent thinker. If I really am, I don't need to force that point." or "My whole point is to hurt her feelings. That's not a good goal."

Sometimes people give the best advice to kids:
http://kidshealth.org/teen/your_mind/families/tips_disagree.html

I generally consider myself a very open minded person. I consider myself a good listener who focuses more on the person I'm listening to than what I plan on saying. I consider myself rational and patient and friendly. I believe I've helped people in my life by simply listening to them.

But I proved today that I'm not always that way. I bet I'm not alone.

Feminism and Sexism: An introductory perspective for people who aren't mad about anything

2015-07-12T19:18:00.000-05:00

Feminism

My old view

First off, let me say that, coming into this issue, I was a rather uninformed observer. My perspective on feminism basically had a few core thoughts, with varying degrees of strength. I hadn't considered the validity of these assumptions. I just admit that I had them:
1) Feminism is an extreme perspective where women insist on their own dominance and superiority over men.
2) Otherwise healthy women (and only women) fall into this trap of calling themselves feminists because they feel like it makes them strong women.
3) Feminism is potentially dangerous to men because of the anti-male mentality of feminists.

A New View

After spending dozens of hours researching the issue online and in books and articles, I have changed my perspective. A more accurate set of assumptions about feminism might look like this:
1) Feminism is a diverse set of views that are unified by the belief that ALL people (not just women) should be treated equally.
2) Every reasonable person, whether they are willing to admit it or not, is a feminist... because anyone who believes that people shouldn't be treated equally is kind of a jerk.
3) While some feminists, and some forms of feminism are anti-male, these views are not held by the majority of reasonable feminists.

Quickly, I'd like to qualify #2 from this second set, because it could potentially offend some people. I see two main reasons for this:
A) Someone might not wish to be associated with feminism, and they may feel that it is presumptuous of me to say what their view is.
B) Others may have philosophical arguments that, while respecting all people, demonstrate how equality is not real.

In response to A, my purpose in saying this isn't to define your views. Rather, it is to define feminism. Before doing a little deeper research, I viewed feminism as potentially quite extreme. However, most modern feminists are not. Historically, I think feminists tended to be necessarily more extreme, because to take a stance that specifically challenged the dominance of men WAS extreme, and required extreme people who were willing to be seen as a little crazy in the culture they lived in. The current reality is not like that. For the most part, modern feminists are philosophical and work with the established social system, despite its flaws.

In response to B, the philosophical arguments suggesting that equality is not real are equivocating. Feminists are NOT saying that women are men (except really crazy feminists, who are rare). Feminists are NOT saying that there is equality between people within our society. Feminists are NOT saying that men and women face the same challenges, or have evolved the same way, or think the same way, or experience life the same way. Actually, most feminists agree, even argue, that women are very different from men, that society treats people unequally, that men and women face unique challenges, that they have evolved to be very different entities, think very differently, and experience life very differently. Some historic feminists have gone so far as to say that women interact with language so differently that even the definition of a sentence is based on how a man views language - which is a claim that is not subtle or trivial, and has many implications.

Feminists are not saying that people are equals in that sense. The feminist idea is that everyone deserves the same degree of respect. Respect is not simply liking someone. It is letting them speak, it is hearing their view, it is allowing them to have the autonomy that you want for yourself.

Women are from Venus

For a moment, let's consider a race of alien beings that come to earth. They seem friendly, so in our great kindness, we build them houses, teach them, and incorporate them into human society. We are friendly and welcoming in every way we can be. What are the moral implications of what we've done? The unwritten assumption is that we don't know anything about them. We have no idea what their natural habitat is. We don't know how their brains work, or how successful our educational system will be with them. We don't know anything about their culture, and impose our "superior" cultural view upon them.

This example is good for 2 reasons. First, feminism asserts that women are different organisms from men, with different needs, different views, a different voice, different desires, etc. Second, society has almost always been patriarchal, with men leading the governments, writing the literature, and teaching in schools. If women really are quite different, then they are being raised in a society that is alien to them.

Now, in this example, if the aliens were feminist, they wouldn't suddenly grab their phasers and take over human society. They would write books, do research, make speeches, make blogs, make youtube videos. Because 1000 years down the line, even the aliens don't remember who they were. The question is, "How can a person truly know herself if she has been raised by aliens?" What are women really like? We can't possibly know, because they've been raised by a masculine culture. They have men's ideals, men's educational values, men's history, men's sexuality, etc. This is not to disparage men or men's views at all. It is simply recognizing that there is a potential alternative, and respecting that view.

Are feminists just angry people?

Imagine how angry a macho man might be if he were suddenly forced to wear pink bunny pajamas with a purple bow, and then told to watch the Bratz cartoon for the rest of his life. He'd bust some faces! Some women, when coming to the realization that they are trapped on a man's planet, get angry. Their anger is extremely understandable. The only problem is if they try to blame their anger on a particular person. Cause, like I've mentioned in the past, human society is a giant machine with cogs constantly moving and no direct way of altering its function.

However, feminism is not angry. Particular people may be angry, which I think, as an outsider, looks a little crazy. But feminism is not a philosophy about violently revolting against men. It is a philosophy about discovering what women (and all people) really are, and letting them blossom for themselves.

But feminism is somewhat more complex than this

Before I move on, I'll add that this is one view of feminism, which encompasses a great many views on feminism that I consider to be very reasonable. There are also feminists that I flat out disagree with. However, my purpose today is to demonstrate how feminism is a really reasonable thing, and I feel that by arguing about the feminist views I disagree with, I would be undermining my argument at this point. I'm not saying all feminists are reasonable. I'm saying that YOU can be a feminist without being a weirdy.

And lastly, before I move on, let me also point out that I'm not an expert on feminism. Would a "true" feminist describe feminists differently? Yes. Would an expert on feminist theory describe it differently? Yes. But part of the point of my blog post is to enable the non-expert, non-feminist to recognize the value of feminism. Perhaps feminism's greatest weakness is its image to the uninformed. So, in this case, my feeble voice on the issue is superior to the expert and the life-long feminist.

Sexism

Prejudice + Power, and why I disagree with the feminist definition

Let me emphasize that sexism goes both ways. I will be referring to sexism by men against women, but I feel very strongly that sexism by women against men occurs and is equally wrong. At least some feminists hold a specific definition of sexism that says sexism is a one way street. This is because the group that has the power in society (i.e. men) are able to employ sexism in a powerful and damaging way, whereas those without power (i.e. women) cannot do the same.

At first glance, this notion seems ridiculous. If someone is sexist, they're sexist, and it's wrong either way. If a man doesn't get a job because he's a man, it is sexist, even if he were the only man to ever receive that sort of treatment. The fundamental feminist ideology, the equality of all people, tears down this definition. A true feminist can't simply make excuses for excluding men from the definition of "all people".

However, they aren't specifically being anti-man when they say this. Instead, they are trying to develop a vocabulary that is capable of addressing the many facets of the arguments. Sexism, in the feminist sense, refers specifically to prejudice on the basis of gender by a group that has the power to do something about their prejudice. In contrast, sexism against man is termed merely prejudice, because there is no power behind it.

I disagree with this idea. I'm open minded, and willing to consider the implications of accepting or disagreeing with this idea. But, men are not in charge by definition. They have historically been in charge, and they are still in charge in many ways. But that does not mean that women have no power over men, or that prejudice against men is impotent. The assumption that men need no defense, need not be included in definitions that apply to everyone else, and need not have equal consideration... to me, it comes across very oddly. It seems like a special effort by women who fear that their own tools to escape from prejudice will be used against them.

I am empathetic to this feeling, and I feel that they deserve protection from such a short-circuit. But I also feel that feminism is not simply about the relationship between men and women as it stood 1000 or 100 years ago, or as it stands today. Feminism has the capacity to address the societal relationships between all peoples forever more. Furthermore, women do have power, even if the division of power is not equal. And some men are powerless. As society progresses, it becomes more and more dangerous to simply assume that men are in power.

After all, even if "men" are in power, a man need not be. Consider the case of a man who is good and kind to all he meets, but he is subjected to gender-based prejudice that results in great loss. The loss isn't lessened by the fact that he's a man, or that some men have power, or that some men abuse power to hurt women, or that there is more male literature, or that there are generations of authority behind sexism against women. His experience is equivalent to that of a woman who faces the same experience. Some feminists would disagree with this, because of what I've written in the prior sentence. Prejudice and power have harmed him, and I'd darn well call that sexist.

As with everything, I'm still learning about this. I'm open minded, and willing to consider the implications of what I'm saying. I'm no expert. But I hope you will equally consider my thoughts. I really doubt I'm the first to argue this case against the feminist definition of sexism.

Sexism as an impersonal cultural issue

I will begin with a statement that I think would be somewhat shocking to someone who knows how I feel about sexism: Sexism is not something to feel guilty about. Now, why do I say that?

In part, it is because sexism is not the same as sexist acts. Sexism is a cultural view, not necessarily a personal one. Sexist acts, on the other hand, are personally performed. A boss might not hire someone because she is a woman - that's not only sexism. It is a sexist act. It also happens to be based on an inaccurate cultural idea that women are not as capable as men. Did the boss create that idea? No, not necessarily. The boss simply lives in the culture that promotes the idea. As long as the boss doesn't act on those cultural impressions, then the boss is helping to solve the problem rather than propagate it. Thus, the boss would neither be responsible for the thought, nor be supporting its advancement.

Likewise, sexism is not the same as sexuality. A man may find a woman very attractive (and you will find upon further inspection that many do). This is not wrong or bad. This may be an obvious statement, but I think that sometimes people smear the good and the bad, and it can be very confusing. A boy or man should not feel guilty about finding a woman attractive -- where would the human race be if this weren't the case?

However, our actions must be more refined than our experience. A man who seeks to act on his attraction for a woman should do so in a way that respects her. In some cases, that simply means not acting on the attraction at all, ever, as in the case of a professional relationship. Consider also the case when he has authority over her. It is not sexist to feel this attraction. It actually isn't necessarily sexist per se to act on it. But it can be inappropriate, and it can be sexual harassment. It would only be sexist to feel that a man should be able to act on their sexual feelings in an inappropriate situation where a woman could not.

A person should not feel guilty about what our culture is, because you and I didn't make it. But, we should feel compelled to fight against the negative, and fight for the positive. It would be more reasonable, though not completely accurate, to say that we should feel guilty about the culture that exists after we're dead. What will we help to create?

Can sexism be personally constructed and held on to? Yeah. So stop that.

Results and being open minded

I don't know if all feminists want everyone to start thinking like feminists. I occasionally get the sense that some feminists see feminism as a club. A girls club, making up for thousands of years of boys clubs. Similarly, I get the sense that some feminists don't care how empowering women affects men. If it turns out that men become slaves in a few generations, it wouldn't bother them at all. I think that's not at the core of feminism, and the anti-male attitudes make it really hard for many people, especially men, to take on feminist ideas.

But, like I said, I think there are some feminists who want feminism to remain that way. They want it to be unappealing to men; they want it to be a club for women. Why? Leaving men out of the feminist movement is leaving out half of your potential supporters! By adopting anti-male attitudes, you are leaving behind the universal truths of feminism, the potentially world changing ideas, in favor of a girls club. To be anti-male is not only sexist (SEXIST), it is anti-feminist.

I want to learn more. I want to empower women (as a group). I want to reduce sexism. I want my wife, my sister, my sons' future wives, and any of my female descendants to live in a world where they are at home, truly happy, and fully themselves. I view this issue as larger than myself and my own self-interest. I am open minded. Shouldn't that be appreciated by feminists?

But, being open minded is not enough to feminists, in general, because they are a results oriented bunch. It isn't enough to say you tried, and it isn't enough to apologize for doing something sexist, even if it's an accident. They want to see sexism eradicated, not just have people feel badly about it.

To which, my apologetic reply is: We need to start where we are. Give men a break as we seek to be part of the movement to overcome the social issues that we did not create. Nobody can change 1000 years of history, or provide an additional 1000 years of history without the passage of time.

Is sexism in video games the core of the problem?

2015-07-01T13:27:00.000-05:00

What's the issue, here?

Women are sexy. They are smart. They are daring. They are at times heroic and at times self-sacrificing. Women are exciting and interesting just as they are. If the gaming and movie industry ever figured that out, they'd get rich... er. (I suppose they do get it right, at times.)

The portrayal of women in video games ranges from realistic to mindbogglingly stereotypically sexist. The latter has gotten the attention of feminists, and has recently become somewhat of a hot topic. It is a heated debate that has grown to involve name calling, threats, violence, scandal, political movements, and so much more. On the one side are the people concerned for the injustice and sexism toward women. The opposition includes a group (Gamergate) focused on improving the standards of journalism in the gaming industry - it may not sound connected, but it really is. The feminist side says that the interest in journalism is a front to hide the extreme sexism of the group. This may be true of most of the members of the group. I have no idea, and don't affiliate myself with either side.

Just like the topic of evolution and religion, some people are so tightly bound to their side, with so many good reasons, that saying anything at all against or for either side is seen as a declaration of fealty. I value women. I value good games. I value humanity and humanities. I believe we should honor womanhood, and that inasmuch as games fail to do that, there is room for important improvement.

I also value role models, and changes that are focused and effective.

I watched this video recently:

Real change requires better arguments

I don't know much about Anita Sarkeesian (I keep seeing her pop up), but I feel like she's being too casual about her argument. Is she arguing against violence? Or is she arguing against violence against women? I suppose she could be fighting both, but that's an awfully large fight. A big battle needs to be fought with big guns.

She needs to provide data that supports her claim - after all, she's taking on a major issue in a major industry. I love, and feel very close to my mom, my wife, my sister, and I hope to perhaps have a daughter some day. As such, I'm highly interested in women being respected. But this lady is careless, and as such can't do anything more than get people who already agree with her to make noise. I suppose she has also really bothered some people. Is that success?

The video brings up specific instances of violence toward women in video games. Female prostitutes being run over by cars? I see 2 problems with this point.

A) Prostitution is a real "profession" which is even legal in some states. I don't like it, but it's there, and the games didn't make it. Can we really give a game demerits for bringing attention to this actual phenomenon? Is media better if it produces falsely violent scenarios? They're presenting a story that represents a real part of life. An unsettling part of life that people prefer to ignore. Can we stop ignoring it, please? Can we do something about it?

B) You can run over anybody in the game. Should the game shut down every time you hit someone because, "Hey, that action isn't allowed!" The video makes a big deal about it, "You can kill the prostitute (Image of someone shooting her with a gun), or even run her over!" How is running her over worse than shooting her with a gun, exactly? But more importantly, running her over is a logical possibility given the reality of the game. Anything and anyone can be run over. The fact that you CAN run over a prostitute is... hardly surprising. Why you would want to is another issue entirely.

I'm in favor of increased respect for human life in the media. Ergo, I'm in favor of increased respect for women in the media. Why do the faces of such a movement have to represent themselves so poorly? Why do their arguments have to be so based in pathos? I believe the term for an argument so entrenched in pathos would literally be "a pathetic argument".

The real problem

I am saddened to see the careless hate that's being thrown at women who feel like Anita Sarkeesian. Messages of murder, rape, or other violent acts are truly saddening - even terrifying. She doesn't deserve such treatment. Furthermore, the morons who think it's clever to be so verbally violent, or heaven forbid, who actually feel that way... they just add fuel to her fire. They're the problem.

While making a point about violence toward women in video games, the video shows an image of the beginning of the game Dishonored where the queen is murdered. I can't help but slap my forehead. The queen is a respectable female leader, and she's killed as part of a plot to overthrow the government. Would it have been better if it had been a man? Those kinds of points are just so stupid. Argue that the protagonist should've been female, or argue about ways that women are misrepresented (there's quite a bit of misrepresentation of women). But there's plenty of violence to go around. In general, women are not singled out. If anything, there are far more frequent, and far more graphic deaths of men in games. Focusing on these weak points just decreases their credibility. (Could we please get a face on this problem that is credible?)

A much more serious phenomenon is brought up in the video. The reality is far worse than the portrayal in video games. It is how women are actually treated that is just appalling. Sexist, sexual, violent, or simply rude comments to female gamers just make the world a worse place. The gaming community demonstrates that some people (and it doesn't take long playing online to find such a person) simply haven't been effectively taught values of compassion, integrity, mutual respect, or kindness to strangers. If these things sound old fashioned, I'd argue that they are the important values of the future. Gone are the days where you only see strangers when you venture outside your front door. We now have strangers visiting our homes via our computers on a regular basis. General values for mutually respectful behavior are more important now than ever before. And as the world becomes more connected, these values will only become increasingly important.

Why is Anita Sarkeesian attacking sexism in the video game industry instead of taking on this much more pressing issue? Perhaps it's just easier. But real girls are actually mistreated online every day. The violent backlash against Anita Sarkeesian is an expansion of that behavior. It isn't because they're girls - it's not their fault. It's because their assailants are uneducated in valuing human life.

When are we going to start addressing the heart of this issue?

Update#1: After visiting her website, feministfrequency.com, I have to admit that the video I've linked above does a poor job of representing her stance or methods. For example, in one video, she discusses how refreshing it is to see mutual respect between the lead female protagonist and her male sidekicks; my own opinion mirrors her comments in that video. Also on the website, she does present data regarding some issues. In the interest of forming your own intelligent opinion, I recommend visiting her website, and seeing what Anita Sarkeesian has made. Does she do the issue justice? I'm still forming my opinion.

Update#2: After watching hours of videos, reading pages and pages of ideas and even turning to some textbooks and primary literature to clarify issues for myself, I feel that the ABC video does a terrible, terrible job representing Anita Sarkeesian. They represent her as an object/target/victim of aggressive sexism. She is, rather, the perpetrator/subject/activist of exposing sexist cultural norms - and she doesn't hate the games that she's talking about; if anything she loves them. In return, as a response, she has been hated extremely violently and aggressively. Furthermore, I believe that her analysis of sexism in video games is based firmly in the accepted philosophical underpinnings of moderate feminism, and does not exaggerate the problem, despite focusing exclusively on the problem of sexism in video games. In contrast, the responses to Anita Sarkeesian have been extreme, illogical, and self-righteous. I'm inclined to say that she's made a feminist out of me - it may sound crazy, as a week ago I'd never have said I'm a feminist, but Anita Sarkeesian is really grounded and logical, contrary to what I understood previously.

Baymax's most impressive superhero powers

2015-04-26T09:57:00.001-05:00

When my kids watch the movie "Big Hero 6" I'm sure that the coolest things Baymax does include flying, shooting his fist like a rocket, and doing karate. However, I'm impressed by the plethora of healthcare functions he performs. Not only does he diagnose and treat healthcare problems, but he does so without external aid.

When spraying Hiro's arm with bacitracin, he does so using his finger. This suggests that he either has a container of bacitracin within him, or a means of chemically producing any substance. Either way, this is impressive. As bacitracin is not the only antibiotic that might be used, if he has a container of it, he probably has a container of every known drug. If he internally produces the chemical, then the technology within him is unprecedented. A mobile, human(-ish) sized machine that can create any chemical? Bank.

Equally impressive is his scanning function, which, at one point in the movie, identifies Hiro's peanut allergy. It's already impressive enough that it's able to determine a person's blood levels of neurotransmitters and their blood type. To do so would require identifying molecules inside the person, which is unfathomably impressive. But to identify a peanut allergy is a billion times more impressive. He would have to run peanut allergy simulations on every immunological binding protein in the body, of which there are innumerable. Based on the scanned structure of every molecule in his body, Baymax would have to recognize the potential for peanut molecules to bind and activate the immune system. With neurotransmitters, you could estimate a quantity based on an approximate density in a particular area or something. But to recognize a peanut allergy would require a lot more precision, or you might miss it. And it could be life-threatening to diagnose someone as having no allergy when they actually have one.

So, I guess science fiction is cool to kids and grown-ups alike. No news there. :)

Music and Video Games

2015-03-31T00:00:00.002-05:00

Yeah, yeah, video game music is a lot of fun. I could hum the megaman 2 themesong for hours on end as much as the next guy. Or the kefka themesong. Or try to make clicky-tongue-noises to the final fantasy 7 urgent timed mission music (ticky-tocky-ticky-tocky. DUN. DUN! DUN. DUN!)

But there's a place where music from video games overlaps with music in the real world. It is a zone where the real becomes magical, and the imaginary solidifies. So, I'm sharing some of these things that are truly wonderful.

First, the title song for the game Civilization 4. The song is called Baba Yetu. It is the Lord's Prayer in Swahili, and the song is absolutely glorious. Below is a rendition by Peter Hollens and Malukah, who do lots of cool vocal stuff.

The second song I'd like to share is called "The Queen of Blades". It was written and performed for a competition in 2010 at Blizzcon. The song is based on the lore from the video game Starcraft, and it is just very well done.

The third song is based on the lore from the game the Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. It was written and performed by the fan Malukah (who also performed in the first video above). I can't get enough of this stuff!

There are obviously other musical performances based on videogames that are high quality, but I thought I'd share these, which are among my favorite.

Barbaric Pain

2015-03-18T15:11:00.000-05:00

For a few moments, consider some things.

First, we are able to create 3D CG movies of immense detail and outstanding quality. For example, Disney employed exciting new lighting technology in the movie Big Hero 6.

Second, we're able to wirelessly transmit all of that information to a 3D television. That's right. The extreme detail of the movie can be wirelessly sent via specialized transmitters.

Third... 3D television!!! It's amazing enough that we have been able to display anything we can imagine on a flat surface. Now we can trick our brains by using stereoscopic rendering and polarized glasses. Not to mention the amazing glasses-free technologies on the horizon.

Now, consider that we have sophisticated maps of neural pathways, and unobtrusive techniques for scanning an individual's brain. Consider also that the primary distance-covering method of neurotransmission is simply electrical.

Consider further that pain is a matter of hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

Then, in light of aaaaaaall that, considering aaaaall that stuff... Think about our primary method of treating pain. We give people chemicals that have really poor specificity, and seriously negative side effects!

I'm blown away thinking about all that. It isn't like there's no motivation to find the best pain treatment. Someone could get seriously rich off of this, and powerful companies have massive work-forces dedicated to discovering treatments for pain. Not only are the workers real people who probably are highly interested in solving the pain problem for humanity, but also the companies would benefit immensely by solving this problem.

So, why can't we wirelessly transmit pain relief to people's neural cortexes?

Research into treating phantom limb pain wirelessly is promising. How far off is unobtrusive pain relief?

You've got to admit that this is a compelling issue. Thoughts?

Cool things you can do with google's search engine (besides searching)

2015-02-25T14:36:00.000-06:00

Google has a variety of features that are quite useful. Here are a couple:

1) 10 minute timer - or any number of minutes. If you type X minute timer into google, it starts a timer for you. If you leave the tab open, then when the timer runs out, it will beep incessantly. Since our microwave timer beeps quietly 2-3 times, it's really useful to have this annoying timer.

2) what's my ip address - Typing this into google's search box will not only pull up sites about your ip address, but will also tell you directly. At the top of the search, your external ip address is printed in big bold text.

3) hunger games mockingjay release date - or any movie. Typing a movie followed by "release date" in google's search box will tell you the release date. Similar to the ip address, it'll print the release date in big bold text at the top of the list of search results.

4) hunger games mockingjay rating - or any movie. As before, typing a movie title followed by "rating" will display it's rating. The MPAA rating appears in big bold text at the top of the search results.

5) Date of the moon landing - Some historic events will result in their date being printed at the top of the search results. Other historic events will have a small description, including the date. For example, typing "date of the end of world war 2" pops up a brief description, including the date.

6) US minimum wage - Typing this in google's search box pulls up the current US minimum wage (currently 7.25). Replace "US" with a particular state and you'll see that state's minimum wage (California - 9.00, Texas, 7.25)

7) income tax rate in Colorado 2014 - Similar to the minimum wage thing, you can get a description of income tax rate in a particular state. The response on top is an excerpt, rather than the income tax rate, but the excerpt includes the rate.

I'm sure there are tons of other things you can search for like this. Google will simply provide the information, rather than making you wade through the pages of search results to find it.

Lastly, and most importantly, everyone should experience the image search for "atari breakout". Make sure you do an image search of exactly that phrase, and it will surprise you. Do it! :D

Modding Skyrim: hours of work and no play.

2015-01-29T11:37:00.002-06:00

Lately, I have been rather uninterested in playing video games, which is unlike me. I've looked at lists and lists of hundreds of games and nothing catches my eye. Although the upcoming Star Citizen looks amazing, and promises so much amazing gameplay, I just can't buy it. For one, I've been burned by early access already, and I've decided not to go in for an early access game without a darn good reason. Second, I almost never buy a videogame at full price, and I hope to get a bargain on Star Citizen... some day...

Which eventually led me back to the modern classic, The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim.

A Brief History of The Elder Scrolls (TES).

Arena

In 1994, Bethesda, a company that worked primarily on sports games, released "The Elder Scrolls: Arena" for PC. There may have been other open world games (Betrayal at Krondor), but I think it's fair to say that open world games are much more common today than they were back than. Not to mention that PC gaming is somewhat more mainstream. I've gotten it working on a DOS emulator, and it definitely felt like the ancestor of the modern elder scrolls games, albeit a lot... older feeling.

Daggerfall

I don't know about the popularity of Arena, but I do know that TES 2: Daggerfall was at least talked about when it came out. Daggerfall is much harder to get working on modern systems, and while I did once get a version of this game running, it was sufficiently difficult to keep running that I didn't play the game much. But, it was at least popular among it's fan base... for what that's worth.

Morrowind

Now, TES 3: Morrowind was utterly popular. It is a legend among open world games, and many modders continue to try to recreate this game in the modern game engines of its successors. Open world RPGers often compare modern games to Morrowind. It is held on an untouchable pedestal by some, and at least considered a good game by most gamers. My confession: I only ever played this game for about 15 minutes.

Oblivion

TES 4: Oblivion was the first TES game that I played, and it blew my mind. At the time, truly open world gaming was not really very common. A few games mimicked TES, but Oblivion was definitely the first open world experience that grasped me. The game had a massive scale, which continues to be hard to compete with. The world was just enormous, detailed, and rich with subplots. Just look at this aerial view of the imperial capital (below). There are book stores, magic shops, general merchants, weapons and armor merchants, a thieves guild, a port and harbor, the castle, housing, a prison, a gladiatorial arena, military executive buildings, the armory, religious structures... and a lot of other places and people, with many personal vendettas, love stories, underground activities, or whatever other number of quests, personalities and stories you'll find. Now, think about how in the distance, beyond those mountains, you could find dozens of other cities.

I remember having to turn off the grass to be able to play the game, since the grass textures overloaded my computer. In fact, it wasn't until I got a better computer that I was able to play this game on anything with graphics settings above unbearably mimimalistic. Below is an image that illustrates just how minimalistic the game can look. Even those shrubs on the bottom left and right spruce it up a bit. But the game had a lot of detail, when settings were up high enough.

Now, for TES 5: Skyrim.

This game is an amazing successor to the TES series, but it was a very unstable video game. You'l be playing, and then out of the blue, it crashes. Not to mention, it takes like 10 minutes to start the game and load your last save, which makes a crash all that more frustrating. In fact, the terms CTD (crash to desktop) and microstutter (where the game renders somewhat like a slideshow for a second or two), while associated with poor graphics/game performance in general, are more commonly associated with this game than any other. What a disappointment!

And yet, the game is so immersive and vast, that a committed gamer may overlook these awful aspects to participate in the adventures of Skyrim. In fact, it is quite possibly the most highly modded game ever, with almost 40,000 files boasted at Nexus Mods, a major modding site. Mods include everything from improved graphical quality to diverse alterations of gameplay.

Graphics mods make the game look uber good.

This picture shows a close-up of a texture from the ground, demonstrating the quality improvements available.

This image demonstrates a mod that makes the meshes of various objects look much better... for example, chains are no longer flat, and apples aren't 12 sided objects.

And this picture is just to demonstrate how very beautiful the game can look.

And gameplay mods add really exciting features and interesting challenges, as well as improving various aspects of the game, such as the level system and enemy AI. Some mods I've really enjoyed are:

Frostfall - creates an "exposure" system, where you need to keep your character warm while in cold weather by wearing warm clothing, building a fire, and/or seek shelter in storms.

iNeed - creates a hunger, thirst, and fatigue system that requires meeting your characters needs in order to function at peak performance.

Hunterborn - Takes away the original system where animals have coins and weird things, and replaces it with a field dressing, skinning, and carving/harvesting system.

So... the problem with all this is that the game isn't stable, as I said before. The more mods installed, the less stable the game becomes. But as one begins modding Skyrim, it becomes difficult to decide where to stop modding. For many modders, it seriously gets to the point where they are trying to get the game to start at all.

There is plenty of software designed to aid modders in setting up mods in the most functional possible way. Nexus Mod Manager, Mod Organizer, BOSS, Load Order Optimization Tool, Skyrim Performance Monitor, TES5Edit, Wrye Bash, and many, many others. I've used all of the above, and many others.

To make a long story short... at this point... I've gotten the game to the point that it starts with about 300 mods installed. The experience is awesome... but it microstutters and crashes to a frustrating extent. I guess it doesn't matter too much, since I've not been in the mood to play games anyhow. But it is simultaneously very exciting and frustrating!

Squares and Oats: A long kept secret.

2015-01-09T23:11:00.004-06:00

I'm going to tell you a secret...

The truth is...

...that I am a semi-famous guy in the video gaming world. I know, I know, I'm a nerd. But I'm a semi-legendary nerd.

My online handle is SquarelyCircle. I've used this nickname in most online games, but the name is most famous for publishing the once popular Starcraft II mod called "Desert Strike version Square". In its prime, the mod commanded 60,000 hours of gameplay each day, and continued to see such gameplay statistics for almost a year after I released the mod. To this day, the most popular versions of the Desert Strike mod are based on my original version for Starcraft II and give credit to SquarelyCircle. Of note, and to give credit where credit is due, my version was highly based on a previous version of the "Desert Strike" mod for the original Starcraft game by Queen Gambit.

The degree of fame that SquarelyCircle has is pretty impressive. When using the handle in forums or videogames, I frequently get comments like this one:
"You wouldn't happen to be THE SquarelyCircle from the SC2 WoL mod Desert Strike that has a bunch of popular ripoffs without credit to you, would you? (Awesome game btw, I put quite a few hours into before I got bored of winning :P)"
This particular comment comes from the Starbound forums, but I've been approached dozens of times. Being called "THE SquarelyCircle" is a fun experience.

This youtube video demonstrates some of the features of my version of Desert Strike.

Another interesting thing about SquarelyCircle is that there has been a professionally written song about him. After withdrawing from medical school, I felt lost and somewhat depressed. I spent some time playing DoTA 2, and made many interesting friends. One of them, whose handle was ZeroCrossing, worked in music composition, and he wrote a song to cheer me up. I love it. Listen to the song, it's fun!

Anyway, there's the truth. Be gentle with my nerd side...

Post-Replicator Society: When Scarcity is Scarce.

2014-12-13T10:53:00.000-06:00

More than Space Exploration.

When people think about Star Trek, they might imagine flying in space, discovering strange worlds, and going where no one has ever been. Probably the most famous quote from the Star Trek universe is (cue the music):

"Space, the final frontier.
These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise.
Its continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before!"

In reality, the show is about so much more than what this quote entails. Star Trek is about the human condition, our ideals, and our potential. The most important aspect (though not the central focus) of the Star Trek universe, in my opinion, is an ideal economy.

Removing Scarcity

There exists a particular technology called the replicator, which manipulates subatomic particles to produce atoms, arranges atoms into molecules, and from the molecules forms... well, anything. It can form the cellular structures of muscle and fat, and even specify their particular chemical state, producing a perfectly cooked stake. Or it could make you a closet-full of the latest fashionable clothing. Or, it could produce a rake, a television, a wheel... anything!

In Star Trek, this technology doesn't go unappreciated. The writers have recognized the significant implications of this technology. One quote by Captain Jean-Luc Picard demonstrates how society has changed because of this technology. "A lot has changed in the past 300 years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy."

Voluntary Unemployment

One question that comes up from time to time is, "What will happen to people who refuse to work?" Once everyone can have all of their needs (and most of their wants) met without any cost to anyone, what is going to keep them working? I think the origins of this question are in modern capitalist views of communism. One person, referring to those who are voluntarily unemployed in a post-replicator society, asked it like this:

"Are they considered enemies of the state and punished somehow? (The Australian Penal colonies spring to mind.) Do people have to work to "better humanity"? Or would these people be labelled in some form of poverty?"

However, a few assumptions are made by this question that may be false.

First, the assumption that society needs people to fulfill employment roles.

Population growth is likely to level off, landing the Earth at approximately 8.9 billion in the year 2300 (UN Report). Currently, about 15% of workers are employed in production industry sectors (Bureau of Labor Statistics reports). Current unemployment ranges from 3% to 40% depending on the country (International Labor Organization). I can only guess that the average worldwide unemployment is something like 10%. Adding the current unemployment to the loss of production jobs, then taking into consideration the moderate population growth, I think it seems likely that there will be greater than 25% unemployment in a post-replication technology society.

Of course, there are tons of additional factors, but additional factors could raise or lower unemployment. Without additional information, I think it wouldn't be too irresponsible to say that 25% is a close working unemployment rate. It is at least safe to say that society would easily support a 25% unemployment rate.

Which brings us to another assumption of the "how will we punish lazy people" question... that society will care what you do. Right now, a person doing nothing comes across as lazy. In reality, the unemployed people I know either have serious health problems, or are very sad about their lack of a job. I wonder if, in the future, it will no longer be a shame, and come with less stigma, to have nothing to do, especially if 1 in 4 people will be unemployed.

Consider also that even in a society where there is significant scarcity, world governments have many programs designed to aid those who are unemployed. It will not simply be "ok" to let people be unemployed, but may actually remove the societal burden of dealing with their circumstances.

Insufficient Work Force?

Some people worry that if nobody has to work, there won't be enough people willing to fill the many necessary jobs. After all, why would anyone work if they didn't have to? I disagree! I don't think we get the best from a person who is being threatened. I don't think students learn more in a society that threatens their livelihood if they don't meet a teacher's expectations. I don't think employees work at peak effectiveness for an employer who threatens to fire them if they don't work harder. And I don't think people make the best occupation choices when they're under the pressure of working or dying. Work - or you get no food or clothing or shelter!

People take pride in their accomplishments. People love to get involved. People want to better humanity. And most people feel bored and unfulfilled when they can't accomplish anything for long periods of time. I imagine that people, taken away from the threats of our current labor realities, would be in a better position to apply themselves to their work, and they would be more likely to get involved in projects where they can be of the most use.

Two good examples come to mind. One: the LDS church, where people are not paid for their labor and contributions. Instead they gain rewards of a spiritual and emotional nature. Two: the internet, where people get involved all the time without any expectation of being paid, such as wikipedia, forums, and free software development. Really great software exists that is non-profit, such as blender, audacity, and gimp. If, in our scarcity-ridden society, people are willing to put forth the effort to make such exceptional software, won't they be willing to in a post-replicator society? And what about music, art, and literature? People love to express themselves and not just for pay! If anything, I imagine there would be a renaissance in the fine arts.

------------------------

What do you think? What implications does this post-replicator society have on our own society, or on our future?

Secrets of love, and how my culture is wrong about romance.

2014-12-03T14:17:00.000-06:00

If I could talk to my younger self

I've considered the advice that I might share with someone who is concerned about love. I think many people wonder who they'll marry. And I think many people feel that they lack wisdom when they approach love. Some of us are foolish when it comes to love, and others are clueless. As I look back at my life, I recognize that I have grown significantly, and my views are quite different from back when I was a teenager, or even in my early 20s. I believe that I would have benefited from listening to the advice of a future, and more experienced me. Well, until time travel is invented, I'll just share my thoughts with whoever is reading.

What is Love?

About romance, before I married Sarah, Victor (my older brother) once told me, "It isn't about knowing they're the one. It's about being really excited to be with them." Of all the emotions one might experience, I think his choice to focus on excitement was poignant. I think he may also have been getting at the fact that nobody really has a Hollywood romance. I'd go so far as to say that "magical romance" is a very modern, and very skewed view of love. Most cultures for most of history did not believe in romantic love.

In the LDS church, I think we sway slightly toward the pop-cultural norm. I remember when I was about 16 or so, a newlywed member of my church gave a presentation about having a fairy tale marriage. In response to that, let me transcribe what my grandfather, Carlfred Broderick, said as it is written in his postmortem publication The Uses of Adversity.

While I was serving as a stake president, I was once sitting on the stand at a combined meeting of the stake Primary board and stake Young Women's board where they were jointly introducing from the Primary into the Young Women's organization the eleven-year-old girls who that year had made the big step. They had a lovely program. It was one of those fantastic, beautiful presentations -- a take-off on The Wizard of Oz, where Dorothy, an eleven-year-old girl, was coming down the yellow brick road together with the Tin Woodman, the Cowardly Lion, and the Scarecrow. They were singing altered lyrics about the gospel. And Oz, which was one wall of the cultural hall, looked very much like the Los Angeles Temple. They really took off down that road. There were no weeds on that road; there were no Munchkins; there were no misplaced tiles; there was no Wicked Witch of the West. That was one antiseptic yellow brick road, and it was very, very clear that once they got to Oz, they had it made. It was all sewed up.

Following that beautiful presentation with all the snappy tunes and skipping and so on, came a sister who I swear was sent over from Hollywood central casting. (I do not believe she was in my stake; I never saw her before in my life.) She looked as if she had come right off the cover of a fashion magazine -- every hair in place -- with a photogenic returned missionary husband who looked like he came out of a central casting and two or three, or heaven knows how many, photogenic children, all of whom came out of central casting or Kleenex ads or whatever. She enthused over her temple marriage and how wonderful life was with her charming husband and her perfect children and promised that the young women too could look like her and have a husband like him and children like them if they would stick to the yellow brick road and live in Oz. It was a lovely, sort of tear-jerking, event.

After the event was nearly over, the stake Primary president, who was conducting, made a grave strategic error. She turned to me and, pro forma, said, "President Broderick, is there anything you would like to add to this lovely evening?"

I said, "Yes, there is," and I don't think she has ever forgiven me. What I said was this: "Girls, this has been a beautiful program. I commend the gospel with all of its auxiliaries and the temple to you, but I do not want you to believe for one minute that if you keep all the commandments and live as close to the Lord as you can and do everything right and fight off the entire priests quorum one by one and wait chastely for your missionary to return and pay your tithing and attend your meetings, accept calls from the bishop, and have a temple marriage, I do not want you to believe that bad things will not happen to you. And when that happens, I do not want you to say that God was not true. Or to say, 'They promised me in Primary, they promised me when I was a Mia Maid, they promised me from the pulpit that if I were very, very good, I would be blessed. But the boy I want doesn't know I exist, or the missionary I've waited for and kept chaste for so we both could go to the temple turned out to be a flake.' or far worse things than any of the above. Sad things -- children who are sick or developmentally handicapped, husbands who are not faithful, illnesses that can cripple, or violence, betrayals, hurts, deaths, losses -- when those things happen, do not say God is not keeping his promises to me. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not insurance against pain. It is resource in event of pain, and when that pain comes (and it will come because we came here on earth to have pain among other things), when it comes, rejoice that you have resource to deal with your pain."

The book goes on, obviously, but every time I think back to that "fairy tale wedding" presentation by the newlywed girl, I recall this passage from my grandpa's book. "Magical romance" is so distinctly disconnected from the reality of life. In contrast, kindness, compassion, trust, sacrifice, forgiveness - these are the aspects of love that fit into the reality of life and marriage. I think Victor is far closer to understanding love than Hollywood is. Being excited about being with a person is the passion that we seek. Hearts thumping, sexual intrigue, yearning for a person -- these things happen, but aren't the crux of a truly (non-magical) romantic relationship.

How can I be sure I've chosen the right person?

Imagine you were to marry a close friend. You'd have exciting times, fun times, romantic times, sacred times, intimate times, celebratory times. You'd have terrifying times, challenging times, arguments, angry times, sad times, and times that felt downright hopeless. You could, if you chose to, look back and say, "I wish I'd married so-and-so." or "I wish he'd/she'd be more <insert personality trait>." And indeed, such thoughts come to married couples to some degree. However, by employing the tried-and-true methods of the family proclamation, you would make it through frustrating and even terrifying times, and be glad that you were with someone through those times. Someone that you loved - the kind of love that you already know and experience, not the kind that everyone imagines from Hollywood movies.

No matter who you end up marrying, they won't be perfect. No matter what, you'll have up and down times. Sarah is a wonderful wife. I'm very grateful for her, and I consider her the best friend I've ever had. We have differences of opinions, and the minutia of our personalities occasionally clash.

Before dating Sarah, I dated a girl, we'll call her R, who was really attractive. She had a beautiful singing voice, was fun to be around, had a cute smile and laugh. I ended up dumping her because she kept calling her ex-boyfriend just to talk... for hours. I told her how I felt about it, and that I couldn't continue in a relationship where she did that. She continued, so I dumped her. At first, she begged to get back together, but I was too hurt. What if I had married her? She wasn't as smart as Sarah, but Sarah doesn't sing as well. She was fatter than Sarah, but that came with a sexy-curvaceous body. I could break down each little aspect of their personalities and their lives and compare them. I'd choose Sarah every time. Why? Because I feel like Sarah and I are better friends than R and I ever could have been.

There was another girl who became interested in me just before I made a serious boyfriend/girlfriend commitment to Sarah. I think her name was... M. She was in nursing school, read a lot, and was very intellectual. On one date, we watched a movie together, and she kind of cuddled up to me, and I liked how she was comfortable being affectionate. She had a face that was cute like a baby's or cartoon character's face (big, beautiful eyes), and she had a great sense of humor. She was very attractive - physically, mentally, spiritually, and personality-wise. The real reason I didn't pursue her was that I ended up pursuing Sarah. Now that I'm married to Sarah, I think it's somewhat taboo to say that I would have been as happy with this other girl, M. But I didn't end up marrying M, and there's no way to know what it would have been like. Who knows, maybe it would have been even better in some ways.

But it doesn't really matter, cause my life isn't a competition. We aren't trying to ensure that we pick a perfect, flawless person that has unquestionable chemistry with us. In contrast, we're trying to find someone who we're excited about. We don't want to come home every day with the sure knowledge that our spouse doesn't make sense in our life - abuse, sin, or significant value differences. But the reality is that we will come home to a person that isn't our romantic ideal... no matter who we marry. Romance, true romance, is the ability to forgive and love a person even when it isn't easy. To have a truly romantic relationship is when you know that your spouse will do that for you, too.

The unambiguously wise words of an irrefutably wise man

Before I close, I'd like to share a portion of a talk I gave a few years back about choosing the right. I consider it the best talk I've ever given, in part because I really thought about it, and wrote notes and developed the talk on my own for months. Then, after I finished the talk, the bishop randomly came up to me and asked if I would give a talk on Choosing the Right (cue the Twilight Zone music). This section is the second of about four main sections.

Who should I date? Who should I love? Who should I marry?

These decisions are important, and you should council with the Lord as you thoughtfully make these decisions. Let me share with you a few things about this decision.

You will date your friends

You will marry someone you date.

You should, therefore, choose your friends wisely. Does this sound familiar? It should, because it's important.

Who should I love? Absolutely everyone, no joke. In our society, people who have faith in nothing believe that love has some romantic, obscure magical property to it. But I know for a fact that a 2 year old fully understands love enough to act with love or to choose not to. You and I understand love enough to choose to act with love. Love is necessary in all your interactions, and you will be a better person if you choose to treat all those you meet with love.

Everyone you date should be treated with loving kindness. When you become seriously involved with someone, you will express your love in additional ways, but the Christ-like love you share with all will never be replaced by passion, physical intimacy, or googly eyes.

My wife and I feel passionate about each other. We are excited to see each other. We have even been caught kissing from time to time. But the principles taught in the family proclamation are those that hold our family together with love. How I express my love to my wife makes a big difference in the quality of her life, and it’s important for us to practice expressing love to everyone so that we are well-versed in love.

As far as whom you should marry, you cannot afford to marry anyone unworthy of the eternal destiny you seek, or who you cannot love. Likewise, you cannot afford to casually pass up the opportunity to marry someone you love and who would help you reach the Celestial Kingdom. You should get anxiously engaged to someone that you think is wonderful.

It's a bit early for Valentines day, but I feel like it would be appropriate for me to close this treatise on love by sharing some of the feelings I have for my wife. Sarah is a beautiful girl. She has cute, curly hair, deep brown eyes, and an attractive, eye-catching physique. Her laugh is contagious, and laughing with her has become among my favorite memories from my whole life. She is a diligent, thoughtful, and forgiving person. As a mother, she is wise and nurturing. Her mind is more powerful than a nuclear missile - she's a friggin' genius. I feel grateful for her in so many ways, and very profoundly. I consider her the greatest blessing of my life. With all the challenges I face, I am grateful to face them with her by my side. I look forward to growing together for a lifetime, and sharing eternity.

---------------

For those unfamiliar with the brief LDS document about the importance of families, here is a link to The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

Present present present!

2014-11-29T13:50:00.002-06:00

I think some parts of american culture tend to suggest a rather shallow gift-giving attitude. More money spent = you care more about the person. This is a really false idea. A person must budget and carefully decide what to spend their money on through out their year and their life. Coming up with an idea for a present isn't about throwing such care out the window. Ignoring financial responsibility in favor of getting something nice is not an appropriate way to demonstrate love.

Furthermore, dollars spent can't be translated to any degree of love. Does the rich man love his wife more than the pauper? If the rich man doesn't spend as much as he is capable of spending, does that mean he didn't care as much? By that logic, we should all go broke every time we get something for our loved ones.

There are alternative ideas about gift giving present in our culture. "The thought that counts" is popular, but I think the idea is meant to forgive bad gifts, rather than guide gift selection. Selecting a truly excellent gift is a challenge taken with ambitious motivation. Really loving a person should motivate us to select carefully. Thoughtfully. And the gift shouldn't be something that appeases the need for a gift or simple desires. While chocolate is a fun gift, I feel that appealing to a person's taste buds doesn't fulfill the potential of a gift. Of course, I don't mean to discount the additional depth that might accompany such simple gifts.

So what makes a gift good?

Here are some thoughts I've had on this matter.

1) A gift should uplift. (It rhymes!!)
Giving the right gift includes knowing the needs of the other person, and finding what we can do to bring joy to their life. The better we know them, the better our gift selecting can be.

2) A gift should bring the giver and receiver closer together.
I had a friend who would pick ring tones in a very particular way. He wanted each song to represent himself, since it was his phone that was ringing. At the same time, he was careful to select a song that represented the person calling. Homing in on the right song was a thought filled task, and the result would be a song that tied his personality to the caller. There was a kind of intimacy in his method of selecting a ring tone.
Giving gifts should take as much thought about the personality of the individual.

3) A gift should be valuable.
Not necessarily costly, but gifts should be something that the person feels like keeping, using, and remembering. Gift cards are valuable in one sense, but in a non-monetary sense, they can lack value to the receiver.

4) A gift should be heartfelt.
The best stories about gifts are stories of sacrifice. The giver wanted to give the gift so much that they went to great lengths, or went through personal troubles to give it. "The Gift of the Magi" is one sweet Christmas tale that touched upon this concept.

The sacrifice of one's life for another is said to be the greatest demonstration of love. And yet, I'm awfully tempted to believe that living one's life for another is greater still. One way or the other, a true gift demonstrates the commitment of one's self to the receiver.

Sooooo....

I'm certain I'm not the only person thinking about giving good gifts this time of year. What do you think makes a gift good? What are the best gifts you've received over the years?

Too Human is Error

2014-11-25T09:17:00.000-06:00

There is something human about excess. Eating too much, kissing too much, drinking too much, talking too much. It reminds me of Italy, art, expression, and the human condition. However, I think it's also pretty human to try to monitor our excess and become more moderate. The extreme, pseudo-manic aspects of humanity need to be controlled to some extent.

And yet, I think we can almost subconsciously get the feeling that we're giving up some important part of ourselves. After all, I've heard the misquotation, "mediocrity in all things" more than a few times. I can't help but humorously wonder if the persons who have misquoted this see moderation as a weakening of themselves, and therefore fail to get out the accurate saying, "moderation in all things." Maybe I'm being too analytically Freudian.

Why might we feel insecure in moderation, and is our insecurity founded? I won't address this too specifically, but perhaps it is due to a misunderstanding of moderation.

Concerning eating, kissing, drinking, and talking, I don't believe I'd bother arguing that excess is better than moderation. Still, I abstain from alcohol entirely, and some astute individuals might note that abstinence is no more moderate than excess. However, there are some situations where an imbalance is appropriate. After all, in Revelations 3:16 it states, "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Dallin H. Oaks, a leader of the LDS church, once said that moderation in commitment "is not moderation, but indifference."

I think the Dhammapada, a Buddhist text, gets at the heart of moderation. The Dhammapada says, "Even the gods hold dear the wise one, whose senses are subdued like horses well trained by a charioteer, whose pride is destroyed and who is free from the cankers." Shortly after, it states, "Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself."

The purpose of moderation isn't to minimize ourselves, or to face life incompletely. The purpose is to be the masters of ourselves, and not given to every whim, or force of life's tides. Our commitment, our efforts, our love, our hope, and our faith can be full without becoming slaves to circumstance. Even (or especially) at our best, we can magnify our callings, amplify our efforts, and enjoy our endowments.

Early Access videogames and Kickstarter: Why funding games is ruining them.

2014-11-20T09:17:00.001-06:00

For a few years now, many videogames have funded development using the new hype of crowd funding. Games don't make themselves, and the people responsible for the code, graphics, story, game design, and fixing bugs all need to eat. In the past, publishers would invest in the development of a game, and the developers would make the game under the iron fist of the publisher. Some developers have sought freedom through crowd funding, where in the past they would have to personally fund their own games to avoid strict publishers. Publishers have been seen as "the problem" with games in the past - the reason the games are released with bugs, without additional interesting content, and without the full dream of the developer being realized. Recent events suggest that publishers may not be all that bad for the gaming industry.

Now, I'm not saying that crowd funded games turn out bad. However, with crowd funding the cost of failed games is directly put on the shoulders of fans who supported its development. Furthermore, ideas are being funded even if the idea-makers can't do any of the things necessary to bring them to fruition. Publishers are discerning like an employer hiring an employee - does their skill sound good or not? Gamers are discerning in a different way - does the game sound good or not? The fact is, a great game coming out is a lot harder than a great game idea coming out.

Furthermore, publishers put restrictions on developers that keep them working in a realistic goal-oriented environment. Some developers can't stand the thought of their babies being anything less than perfect, and so the game's development has the dreamer priority set instead of the publisher priority set. The dream sounds so good that gamers throw money at their screens, even if a game is never actually made.

One last note about crowd-funding, in general, is that the risk is entirely on the funders, but the benefits are not. Oculus Rift raised $2.4 million in crowd-funding, and was purchased by facebook for $2 Billion. The crowd didn't get any return on the investment, like would be seen with a standard investment. And yet, if it had failed, as many projects do, they would have lost their contribution for nothing.

Examples of games that have successfully used crowd funding include:

Starbound
I like to explain Starbound as Terraria meets Mass Effect. A rich space-age lore mixed with the addictive build-n-survive game mechanics of Terraria or Minecraft make for a great experience. The game is in an open beta for those who have prepurchased the game. It seems to be making good progress, despite the fact that no true gamer can say they're happy waiting for such a masterpiece of 2D pixelart. Chucklefish, the company behind Starbound, has raised over $4 million in presales and support so far. Of note, the game is not yet finished, but progress is steady, and near-daily reports are given by the team on the front of their website.
Pillars of Eternity
I don't know much about this popular RPG in the works. However, it is being produced by the same people who made Wasteland 2, another popular crowd-funded game. I guess Obsidian Entertainment must know how to put crowd funds to use. This project raised $4 million on Kickstarter.
Star Citizen
Imagine flying a spaceship. While previous space games have done a good job of giving you the sense of being in space, the vastness of the universe, and the open-ended ability to accomplish what you think is important (such as gaining riches, or amassing an army to tear across the universe), Star Citizen promises to take it all to a whole new level. Besides the exceptional graphics and attention to detail that immerse the player in this universe unlike ever before, the game promises a sense of scale unseen in other games. You can exit your spaceship to walk around the space-station, or land on a planet and explore; and while these things have been done before to some extent, it has never been addressed so fully in all aspects. This project raised over $2 million from Kickstarter, and has raised over $62 million overall. Of note, though, this ambitious game is still not completed, 2 years after being successfully funded, which is understandable given its scope. I doubt it'll run out of budget before completion.

Examples of games that have been crowd-funded, but failed in some way:

Spacebase DF9
Double-fine hit a niche market with the promise of this space-station simulator. It followed in the tradition of Dwarf Fortress, which doesn't tend to turn out well for games. Many Dwarf Fortress-like games have been critically bashed, and hated by their fandom. While technically Spacebase DF9 was completed, it wasn't what Double-fine, nor their fans, wanted in the complete product. The game feels like a cheap/incomplete version of what it ought to be. This title became a money pit before they reached their production goals, and that's after they spent a half million dollars.
Yogventures
An unreasonably popular minecraft-like game based on Yogscast, a popular gameplay-broadcasting group. It raised a half million dollars and was never produced.
Dark Matter
The game's original ending so infuriated fans that the makers replaced it. More or less, the game ended midway, and excused itself from the room. When first released, it popped up a black screen with white text that boringly explained the end, and then stated, "You have reached the end of the game." The replacement ending included a video instead of a black screen. However, it was still a testament to the fact that the game couldn't meet its production goals with its funding. Granted, only about $9000 were raised through crowd funding. If games could be produced for that much, it would make game development insanely profitable.
Broken Age
Another Double-fine debacle. While this game was a relative success compared to most of the others on this list, the funding was still insufficient to complete the entire game, and so it was broken (no pun intended) into two games, effectively increasing the price to the gamer. Double fine asked for $400,000 in crowed funding, and received $3.5 million. It is beyond me how their original figure could be so far off.
Godus
My understanding is that this game was more popular than it was good. However, being a god has always been an appealing idea to gamers. This game has been compared to the now ancient game Populace. Metacritic scores are about the lowest I've ever seen. The scores should be taken with a grain of salt, since most reliable reviewers wait until a game is complete before rating it. 22cans received something like $900,000 from crowd-funding.
Prison Architect
Although the game is coming together, and it is a fun success, the game began as a cute little prison-building game, then changed. Early access enabled supporting this title before its rather gory later version came out, including graphic criminal cut-scenes. This may not seem like a failure to many supporters, since they never expected it to remain the cutesy prison simulator that it was. However, it raises questions such as which countries will the game be able to sell in? Should all early access games have restricted sales in countries that don't allow extremely graphic scenes in videogames, just in case? For gamers who care about the specific moral education provided by videogames, can early access titles be trusted? Crowd funding supplied about $250,000.

Update: This post is actually somewhat timely. Yesterday, Valve released a new set of guidelines for Early Access games.

Motivating others versus correcting them. Where is the balance?

2014-11-18T10:49:00.001-06:00

Today, I made a decision. I'm not sure if I should be proud of it, or if I would do it the same way again, but it was definitely intentional. In a class I'm taking, students are giving presentations, and the professor has asked us to give honest critiques with the intent to help students improve.

One student's presentation was interesting, but they mumbled so much that I couldn't understand half of what they were trying to get across. As a critique, I told them, perhaps a little bluntly, "I don't know you, and you don't know me. I hope you won't think of me as a mean person for saying this, but I think it would be doing you a disservice not to. Your presentation is my least favorite that we've had so far because you mumbled. It was very problematic to me, since I couldn't tell what you were saying." He took the critique gracefully, then explained why he was mumbling before class ended.

I've considered what I said and how I said it, and wonder if there wasn't a more tactful way to say it. My hope was to emphasize to this student how important it is to work on his mumbling problem.

On the flip side of the coin, I've received criticism from individuals who overemphasized the importance of things that they thought were critical. Several years ago, one person went to great lengths to embarrass me for "lack of preparation" whenever they could, despite the fact that I was prepared. Besides making life difficult and hurting my feelings, it gave me a bad reputation that was unwarranted.

More recently, I had a professor ask me a technical question, and then attempted to embarrass me in front of the class. While reading a scientific research article about breast cancer, he asked me in front of the class, "What does the article mean by the secondary structure of RNA?"
I replied, "The primary structure of RNA is the sequence of nucleotides. The secondary structure is how that line of nucleotides folds up on itself."
He responded, "Are you sure?"
I said, "I'm reasonably sure."
He responded, "Would you bet me $100?"
I said, "So, if I'm right you'll give me $100?"
He responded, "No, if you're wrong, you'll give me $100."
I said, "No. That's a bad bet." (After all, who is going to be the judge of how accurate my response is.... the guy who'll be gaining $100?!?)
He then stated, "I happen to know what the secondary structure of RNA is..." and he proceeded to describe the secondary structure in greater detail.

Now, my answer was right, and if he had asked me the specifics that he pointed out, I would've been able to answer about them correctly. However, he concluded by stating, "I don't want to know what you think, unless you know. You think you're a charming, fun guy, but you're just wrong."

I've considered the event over and over, and I see absolutely no educational value in his making an example of me. I knew what the secondary structure of RNA was. I wasn't guessing or making it up. My answer lacked the specificity that he wanted, but his questioned lacked sufficient specificity to warrant a longer answer.

So, at some point, correcting people needs to be toned down, especially when it isn't really necessary or helpful. But sometimes it is helpful. After all, where would we all be without a healthy serving of constructive criticism. Where do we draw the line?

I'd like to propose the following rules about constructive criticism. They may apply to other aspects of life, as well.

1) Criticism should be respectful. All criticism should be given with the understanding that the receiver is a valuable and worthwhile individual. It should be given with a tone of voice, using wording, and at a time that demonstrates respect for the individual.
2) All criticism should be of a useful nature. Correcting people over trivialities, over opinions, or over vague issues are not generally helpful. At times, things that might otherwise seem trivial can be important, but on a day by day basis, I believe we have a tendency to overemphasize the unimportant when correcting others.
3) The goal should be to help the recipient to improve. Self aggrandizement is not a good reason to correct someone. A casual interest in correcting others is not a good reason to correct someone. Heck, even the duty to correct someone (as a teacher should) is not, in its own right, a good enough reason.
4) Corrections should be timely and relevant. Correcting someone about something they did weeks, or even years ago may not be useful, depending on the situation. Correcting someone on something that can't possibly be fixed is unlikely to be useful.

If I could go back, I would probably not tell the person that their presentation was my least favorite. Despite that this was true, I think that statement was disrespectful and unhelpful. However, I do feel that it was important to tell him that his mumbling stopped me from understanding the presentation.

Building up courage to serve

2014-11-15T20:25:00.003-06:00

A friend recently got into a car accident. Everyone was fine, but their car isn't functional. I was concerned for her, but wasn't sure how to help. I texted to see if they were all doing alright, and she let me know about the situation.

I felt strongly that I should help. Since withdrawing from medical school, I've had significant doubts about my ability to accomplish things. So, I had a bit of doubt about whether I could handle fulfilling any offer that I made. After all, Sarah was away for her grandfather's funeral, I was watching our kids, I was sick, and several assignments were due soon.

My feelings were clear, though, that the kind of person I want to be is the kind that helps when my friends are in need. However, these feelings were accompanied by the anguish of knowing I'm not the invincible person I used to think I was. Do I have it in me to actually fulfill an offer to help?

I remembered the teachings of King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon, where he teaches his people, "And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God." I remembered the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, where he says, "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

My self doubt and anxiety would get in the way of my successfully serving others. But this time, I decided not to let that happen. I texted her and offered to drive her kids to school the next day.

She didn't take me up on the offer. However, I'm grateful for the positive influence that my memory of these scriptures had on me. I overcame the fear I felt and made a sincere offer to help, ready to overcome the weaknesses that would otherwise inhibit my ability to succeed at the task.

It may not sound like much, especially since she didn't take me up on the offer. For me, though, it took some soul searching to make the offer. I'm a better person for the decision I made, and hope that future offers to help will come more readily.

Update: My heart goes out to her family. The situation seems to be getting worse. She finally did take us up on the offer, and I don't know what she would do without it. Serving has made me feel grateful to be in a position where I'm capable to do so, and so very sorry for the troubles the family is facing right now.

Statistics, Memory, and Truth

2014-11-13T08:54:00.000-06:00

I recently had a discussion about statistics in my human disease class, and included are some of my thoughts spawning therefrom.

Concerning statistics, it is interesting (perhaps important) to question how we truly know something. If we see, feel, taste, smell, or touch something, we assume it is real, and we assume it is what it seems. However, the reality is that there are sensations, and there are perceptions. A group of people participated in an experiment where they watched a video, and were given a complex task. I can't remember the task, but I think it involved counting something in the background. The video included people walking into view of the camera, walking toward the camera, doing something like waving, then leaving. One of the people wore a giant gorilla outfit, but participants could not recall that one of the individuals in the video was wearing a gorilla outfit. They were carefully analyzing the video, and failed to see the most glaringly obvious thing. They clearly should have sensed the gorilla (activation of light receptors in the eye and transmission of that data to the brain). However, their perception was significantly lacking!

Here's a related video that gets the idea across.

The truth is that our perceptions are insufficient to make generalized claims about truth, or anything that approaches a claim about truth. I played a videogame one time where you made bets on cockfights, and found myself losing a lot. I went online to see if anyone had the solution for which birds should win the cockfights. Several individuals had posted complex schemes for how the computer decided which bird would win. I decided that I would have fun putting them to the test, so I gathered data on the cockfights and discovered that the game was random chance. Not only was it clear that the complex schemes were wrong, it was glaringly obvious that the game was purely chance. And yet, by just using judgement without statistics, these gamers were way, way off on what the truth of the matter was.
Consider the following scene from the movie Momento, as well.

Leonard Shelby: Memory's unreliable.

Teddy: Oh, please.

Leonard Shelby: No, no, no, no really. Memory's not perfect, it's not even that good. Ask the police. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. The cops don't catch a killer by sitting around remembering stuff. They collect facts.

Teddy: That's not what I'm...

Leonard Shelby: They make notes and they draw conclusions. Facts, not memories. That's how you investigate. I know, it's what I used to do. Look, memory can change the shape of a room, it can change the color of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're just an interpretation, they're not a record. And they're irrelevant if you have the facts.

I bring these examples up to point out how amazingly weak our ability to discern truth is. Statistics do not claim to be absolute. They claim to suggest probabilities. The cockfight game could have followed one of the complex schemes that someone suggested. It was just highly, highly unlikely. So unlikely that, if my goal were to discern the code behind the game, I would need to reject the complex schemes. Gambling is a means of ignoring statistics in favor of hope.

So, in an effort to make generalizable statements about what is true, we are able to use probabilities. They come with assumptions and they come with the accepted fact that the conclusions we draw from them are sometimes wrong. But they also come with the convenience of accurately describing the probability that our reality is a certain way based on past experience.

Now, as stated by other classmates, statistics can be confusing. People don't understand probabilities unless they undergo rigorous training. Even a doctor might say, "You've got 6 months to live." He or she is making a prediction based on statistics, but ignoring the fact that statistics are probabilities. What are the odds that they have 6 months to live? What is the range? What's the standard deviation? What factors might alter this patient's chances? Besides one classmate's excellent point that statistics are about groups, not individuals, this estimate, at its best, is really just a guess. Not that guessing is flat out bad. Check out this story about Fermi guessing the strength of the first atomic bomb.

To further complicate matters, different people, and different cultures, deal with medical information differently. Even if someone has a 100% chance of having cancer, they may prefer not to know. However, and I hope this point rings home to anyone planning to go into a helping profession, if the patient wants to understand their situation, it is our duty to help them understand the reality. They aren't slaves to the system, and the system shouldn't decide what they're allowed to understand!