29 June 2013

Your Actions are (part of) Causing that Traffic Jam You're Stuck in*

*In the morning and evening of most large American cities (especially those surrounded by plenty of suburb), when everyone is driving their cars to their 9-5 jobs, there are simply too many vehicles on the highway for the lane capacity.  You get on the highway at the nearest entrance, and proceed to average 15mph the entire distance from your suburban home to the downtown city center where you work, frequently coming to a complete stop, never going more than 25mph at the most.

In that situation, traffic is going to go slow, no matter what.
That isn't the type of traffic jam I'm talking about.
There is also another type of traffic back up.  The kind that happens in moderate traffic.  Everyone slows down, sometimes even to a complete stop, and then a few hundred feet later, you are moving again at 50, 60, 70mph, as if nothing happened.
Sometimes this happens because there is the aftermath of a crash in the shoulder, or even across the divider on the opposite shoulder of the oncoming lane, and all the drivers feel it is very important for them to take a good look at it, because humans are just like that.  Other times its because someone is getting a traffic ticket, and, even though the cop is clearly busy at the moment, people imagine they are more likely to be caught speeding if the can see a police car.
But most often, these slow downs happen for no apparent reason at all.  You get to the front of it, and cars are accelerating just as suddenly as they slowed down.
Sometimes traffic pulses like this, fast - slow - fast - slow - fast - slow for miles.  In some places, not quite as dense as in the first example above, the daily commute does this pulse jam every single day.
When you find yourself in this situation, the choices you make can either make it better, or they can make it worse.  If you are reading this, there is a decent chance you are one of the few who makes it better already - but if you are like most people, there is a much better chance you are making it worse. 
In fact, if everyone realized what I'm about to explain, and acted appropriately, those slowdowns would never happen in the first place, but, of course, most people don't know any better, so its hard to hold it against them.
At least once you have finished reading this, there will be one more person who understands whats going on, and makes it better instead of worse.

The easiest way to understand how individual actions make the backup better or worse is with an analogy.

Lets say you are in a crowd, and for some reason everyone wants to go through a doorway as quickly as possible (the iconic burning theater, perhaps, or maybe just a Black Friday sale).
Each individual is acting as an independent free agent, and each wants their own personal speed to be as fast as possible.
What happens? 
Everyone rushes the door, and they get stuck on each other as they try to squeeze through all at once.  In extreme cases people get trampled, occasionally fatally, but even if everyone stays on their feet, the chaos amplifies the bottleneck and it takes an even longer time for everyone to get through.



Now consider an equally large crowd, but imagine they consist of a highly trained military company.  When the fire alarm goes off, instead of each individual going straight for the door and attempting to shove each other out of the way, they all immediately form a single file line down the center of the room, each taking their place based on where they started, no one "cuts in line", everyone moves at a quick but controlled pace and never any faster than the person in front of them.
In the second scenario the very last person to go through the door gets through faster than the middle person in the free-for-all scenario.
What has changed?  Each individual is moving a little bit slower, they all give each other a little more space, and no one runs around to the edge of the door to try to squeeze in from the side.  The exact things that people acting as individuals do to try to optimize their own individual escape time are what cause them to get stuck on each other and, paradoxically, means they and everyone else gets out slower.
Researchers have looked at this phenomenon of "more haste, less speed":

The desire for speed overwhelms the desire to avoid collision and the blob people jam up against one another -- just as salt can jam the shaker even though the hole is bigger than the largest grain. The room takes longer to empty even though everyone tries to move faster -- handfuls of people escape in bursts between clogging events.

You can see something analogous on the highways everyday.  Drivers attempt to go as fast as possible at all times, even when there are other cars ahead of them.   Many tend to drive as close as possible to the car ahead, much closer than the recommended 2-3 second rule from drivers-ed class.  When coming up on a line of stopped cars ahead, they will keep a foot on the accelerator as long as they possibly can before hitting the brakes hard just in time to prevent impact.  And any time one lane is temporarily going slightly faster than the one they are in, they pull into it to gain one or two car lengths over those around them. 
The overly aggressive drivers are obvious.
But almost everyone contributes, if to a lesser extent, to the same general phenomenon. 
Say every car is as close as is safe to the car ahead, in every lane, and everyone is moving at a constant rate.  Now what happens if one car wants to change lanes?  Since the cars are all as close as can be already, there is no possible way that the car can change lanes smoothly, because someone is going to have to slow to let them in, and they will have to slow to make the merge.  Now the following cars in both lanes have to brake.  And since the cars behind them were already as close as possible to them, those cars also have to brake.  And since the cars behind them... you get the idea... the stopped cars now travels back through the traffic in a wave. 
Now the same scenario - except the drivers are self-regulating like our military company escaping the burning theater: each car leaves a gap from the car ahead of them large enough that another car can safely merge in front of them.
Now when a car inevitably needs to change lanes, they can do so without slowing down, and without making the car behind them slow down.  They and the car behind them will want to reopen the gap that they just filled, but this can be done gradually over time, with only minor adjustments to speed, and the wave of stopped cars never occurs.

Traffic engineers can control individual driver behavior by putting in deliberate bottlenecks, called metering lights - the kind found at toll plazas and some on-ramps, where everyone is supposed to wait just a couple seconds before they merge with traffic.  Everyone ends up on the highway, but that moment of waiting forces everyone to space themselves out, and even though you had to wait, it is more than made up for by higher average speeds for everyone - including you. 
Sometimes you can even see a similar effect from lane closures or rubbernecking - a section of highway that is moderately backed-up everyday, but on one occasion has a lane closed for construction or due to an accident, if its near the beginning of your trip, occasionally has you get to your destination faster than usual.  As the cars slow down for the bottleneck, and then reach the end and start to accelerate one at a time, they spread themselves out, just like a metering light would have done. 
An identical effect is seen with the crowd of pedestrians trying to get through a doorway; putting an obstacle in the way of the exit actually makes the crowd get though it faster.


Most fire codes require that the pathway to an emergency exit be kept wide open, but according to researchers in Japan, placing an obstruction next to an exit may actually help crowds of people to get out of a room more efficiently.

Researchers found that when people bottleneck near an exit, they start to jostle each other for position. The jostling acts much like friction, slowing down the rate at which people can exit. Introducing a strategically-placed obstacle near the exit can reduce the number of people pushing for the exit, speeding up the rate at which people can pass through.

"We found that we can evacuate faster if we put an obstacle at the suitable position in front of the exit," said Daichi Yanagisawa, who lead the study from the University of Tokyo in Japan.
Even without metering lights, though, you can make a conscious choice to help traffic you are in move more smoothly.
Pay attention to the road ahead.  If you see an ocean of brake lights up ahead, take your foot off the accelerator.  There is no point in racing to be the first to come to a stop.  Resist the urge to change lanes every time one appears to be going slightly faster, unless you have enough space that you can do it without anyone having to slow down for you. Leave a big enough gap between you and the car ahead of you that someone else could safely merge in front of you without you having to slow down.  That applies at any speed, from stop and crawl to over the posted limit** - not only will it smooth out traffic flow, it will also reduce your chances of being involved in a collision, not to mention reduce other people's road rage.  No one can cut you off if you choose to slow down and let them in.
That means people will get it front of you.
And that's ok.
At as slow as 10mph, one car length costs you all of one second.  At 35 it costs you one third of one second.  Big freggin deal!  Let 50 cars get in front of you on a trip with a 45mph average speed, and you get where you are going all of 30 seconds later than you would have had you made sure to be the one to go first.
Not only have you made 50 people a little happier, but you have helped traffic flow a little better for all the people behind you, all the way back down the highway.
Better still, when you are coming up to one of those pointless braking waves, and you start slowing down well in advance, often times it will have completely cleared itself up by the time you get to where it was.  Which means by simply taking your foot off the accelerator, you never have to brake at all.  By avoiding coming to a complete stop, your average speed ends up being higher!  Its quite like timing traffic lights - if you try to go faster than the timed lights are designed for, you have to stop for the red, and someone driving at the speed limit will pass you just as it turns green again while you are accelerating from a stand still.
And if driving with less pointless starting and stopping, less stress, and helping to clear up traffic jams wasn't enough, this also happens to be the best way to minimize fuel when driving in traffic, so you save cash too, along with the environment and America's energy independence. 

Next time you are driving, think about this essay.  When someone exits in front of you, leaving a huge gap between you and the next car, don't rush to catch up.  When you are entering the highway, and the on-ramp is clear but the merging lane is slow, don't stay on the on-ramp until the very last second and then cross over the solid white line in an attempt to pass as many other cars as possible.  You are saving yourself a negligible amount of time, probably less than a second, but you are creating a braking wave that will snarl the traffic behind you potentially for miles.  Think about the orderly single file line, and how much faster everyone exits the building.  Everyone else is going to drive how they are going to drive, but at least you won't be making it worse.  And who knows, if enough of us start doing it, a few others might just take notice, and sooner or later stop and go traffic waves will simply cease to exist.

28 June 2013

Trespassing in the Commune


I'm not much of one for ideology or party lines.
If I see an error in someone's thinking, I'm just as likely to mention it if I agree with their overall point as if I don't.  Trying to get people to see all sides of things tends to put me in the roll of Devil's Advocate, and so I have been accused of being a capitalist by communists, a communist by capitalists, a fan of Ayn Rand (HA!) by anarchists.

A few years ago I wrote some about illegal immigration:

http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/02/viii-in-which-national-origin-is.html

http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/05/23-on-immigration.html

http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/05/27-join-california-resistance.html

http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2006/12/two-immigration-articles-in-week.html
You just might get the idea from those that I have some particular opinion on the issue.
But really, I was trying to point out what one side of the debate prefers to ignore.
That doesn't mean the issue is one-sided or simple.
The other side does just as good a job ignoring what it doesn't want to see.
Just like with the abortion debate, I mostly agree with the progressive side in practice, but I recognize that they are right for the wrong reasons, while in principal the conservative side at least gets the question right, even if they are mistaken about the answer.

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


Imagine a hippy commune, out in the country side.  A few hundred people live there together, they come up with house rules, they all do chores, everyone contributes to the property taxes and insurance costs of the land and building and to a communal maintenance and repair fund.  Lets say this particular commune works really well, they come up with a system to manage internal conflicts, they are reasonably self-sufficient, but everyone also has real jobs so they have cash for trading with the outside world.
Sooner or later people are going to have children, and a new generation will be raised there. 
Now and then some people will want to leave, and that's just fine.
Other times new people will want to join.  These people are all about peace and love, sharing and community, but that doesn't mean they won't want to screen applicants.  They want to know, as anyone would, if their prospective new member shares their values and work ethic and whether they are responsible.  They may want to know about any drug addictions, criminal history, or if the applicant is employed.  They may decide to allow someone to join who doesn't meet a particular criteria if they have a good explanation, that could be decided on a case-by-case basis, but it would be hard to find fault in the community for wanting to at least ask the questions.  It is, after all, their home, and simply opening the floodgates would mean its rapid destruction. 
Now lets say this place is so successful, so popular, that there is a waiting list to even be interviewed by the residents.  But its a huge estate, and its hard to keep track of all the residents, not to mention all the guests and visitors, and someone gets the idea that instead of getting on the end of the waiting list, they can just come as a guest, and then just never leave - or maybe even sneak it through an open window.
They find a spare storage room that no one is using and set up a little bedroom in it.  No interview, no lease agreement.  They don't help pay for the property tax, but they do more than their share of chores, they contribute to the communal maintenance fund, and they follow all of the rules.
This trespasser has not really done anything terrible.  They are contributing their fair share.  But they also snuck in without permission.  When the residents figure out that they did, they are fairly likely to throw the trespasser out, or at least to consider it.  If it takes long enough before they are caught, there's a chance they will have friends and advocates, but the very fact of having snuck in in the first place is likely to be a strike against them.  And no matter how good of a roommate they have proved themselves to be, the fact remains that they are taking up a slot that could have otherwise been filled by someone who has been waiting on the waiting list.
Ultimately, whether they stay or go would be up to the official residents. 
Would it be unreasonable if their ultimate decision is that the trespasser can not stay?
America - every nation - is essentially a commune: a community of people living together, sharing common interests, property (private property may exist as well, but so does public space) and resources.  This land is home to all the people who were born here.  As I pointed out in my earlier essays, no one "deserves" to be born any particular place, its nothing but luck - going back to the analogy, suppose none of the residents personally built the commune, say the estate was originally inherited long ago, and an entire generation has turned over since then.  It is still their home, and they still have a right to demand that no one sneak into their windows and move in without permission.

When you look at it this way, arguments such as "I work hard", "I have family here", or "I have been here for 20 years" all seem a bit less reasonable or even relevant.  If you feel you have a good reason, put it on your application, but its still ultimately up to the residents to admit you or not.
Why should any of that change just because the scale changes?
What does it really imply when someone wants to redefine illegal immigrants as "undocumented workers", because "no person is illegal"?
The logical conclusion is that there should be no boarders, that everyone should be able to live anywhere.  New Zealand has low crime, high quality medical care, schools and transportation, and excellent weather.  If I want to go there, the country is going to make me apply for a visa - and if I don't already have family there, a high level degree, a special skill and a job offer in the country, or a lot of money and a promise to invest there, chances are the application will be turned down.  Just like in America, and every other country.  If an American is in Taiwan on a work visa, and gets fired, the country will deport them.

If we open the flood gates, and half of  Guatemala, 1/2 of Haiti, a quarter of Mexico and Jamaica, everyone in Somalia and most from Ethiopia, everyone who can scrape together any means of travel and lives somewhere poor, they all come to the US which no longer has any boarder patrol, no longer has any immigration service,  no longer has any program for deportation, what happens then?  Is life better for the new immigrants, in now ridiculously-crowded-with-
unskilled and-uneducated America, which doesn't have the resources to provide either jobs not welfare?  Before they may not have had an opportunity to get ahead, but at least they were getting by. Is life better for the now severely underpopulated folk left behind in the mother countries, where the only people left are those who had so little they couldn't make the trip, and doesn't have enough people to get all the jobs done that need to get done?  Is life better for the Native born Americans?  Over all, between the 3 groups, would this change be positive? 

Some people are supportive of "undocumented" immigrants.
They say things like "no human being is illegal" (I just saw that on one of those petition / donation emails).  They are focused on not punishing people for trying to find a better life, not breaking up families.  They are focused on people, on individuals.  They are looking at individual people, they see that people are unhappy, they don't like people being unhappy, so they don't like the situation or the rules, or whatever.  But it seems like few, if any, want to take a step back and look at the big picture.

The anti-immigrant people, many of them are racist, nationalist, selfish, angry and reactionary.  But what they are reacting to is the idea of the scenario described above.  Their solutions are largely unreasonable, and there motivations are often unjust.  But they are at least capable of seeing the big picture.  They are right, even if for the wrong reasons.
Of course its not so simple as that.  The real world rarely is.  If you agreed with my previous blog posts on immigration, then this one was for you.  If you agree with this one, go back and read the links I posted in the beginning.  Because if you have a strong opinion, chances are high that you are going on ideology instead of reason.  And that's all I have to say about that.

17 June 2013

The Common Thread

I was at a party yesterday, and I was talking about who knows what, and, I guess maybe because I have an "educated" accent, or whatever, I really have no idea why, she commented that she was surprised I hadn't gone into some field of science.

And I mentioned that I had been expecting to in high school, I had interned in  microbiology and biotech labs, focused mainly on science classes in high school and college, got associate degrees in biology and earth science - but then, by random acts of fate, I had ended up doing semi-skilled manual labor which afforded me not only decent money, but an extremely flexible schedule and the ability to be my own boss. 
I said I still satiated that side of my mind with plenty of reading, and occasional writing.

She asked where I wrote, whether it was just for myself - basically just this blog, and given the size of it's readership, yeah, pretty much just for myself.
and what topics I wrote about, and I tried to think of all the various things I've covered.

She asked what they all have in common.

Nothing really, other than I find them interesting.  And I find of lot of things interesting.  The world is a vast and complicated place.  reality is fascinating.  I really can not comprehend how so many people can willingly specialize, focus on just one area of human knowledge, when there is just so much else out there.  I'm much more interested in understanding a little about everything than everything about a little.

So, yeah, my blog has no theme.
Probably why I will never be able to generate any significant readership.  People subscribe to stuff that focuses on what interests them, and mine doesn't focus on anything.

She insisted that there must be some angle where a common theme could be found.  She said that in what she did, there were always commonalities emerging, even when they weren't obvious at first.

We kept talking more, I elaborated slightly on a few posts, she suggested that maybe challenging preconceptions might  be a consistent thing, and then I realized, duh! it's right there in the header of the blog.



Nothing inspires me to write - to really write, something in depth and well thought out, with perhaps hours of research and weeks of drafting in my head - like something where I find millions of people hold a particular piece of "common wisdom" which just happens to be completely wrong.


But I learned something recently:
People are stubborn. 
I mean, like, really stubborn.

No surprise, right, but the extent of it is.

Its not just rejecting arguments that you don't already agree with.  We humans have a tendency, even in the face of independent evidence or clear factual data, to believe our wrong beliefs EVEN HARDER when they are challenged.

That certainly isn't encouraging in terms of my chances of changing anyone's mind about anything!

Therefore, perhaps I should make this article:

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

mandatory reading before you can read any of the more potentially controversial things I've written.
Except of course that there is no way for me to enforce it.

Well, read it anyway.  And be aware of it, not just when you're reading what I write, but all the time, in day-to-day life, and whenever you argue with anyone.  You can go a long way to overriding your own cognitive biases, if only you are aware of them.  You will make yourself smarter, and by so doing, be able to make your own life better in every way, forever.

You may still disagree with me on all sorts of stuff.  But, at least if you approach it with a truly open mind, you will disagree for the right reasons.

21 March 2013

Obama = Bush Jr??? (hint: the answer is no)

Almost exactly 4 years after I wrote the last article I reposted, on Obama targeting off-shore tax-shelters, I over heard a couple people I'm close to agreeing that, while he gives good speeches, "Obama is really not that different from Bush in policy, and in some ways he's worse", which of course I've heard plenty of times before, generally from folk on the far liberal / leftist / socialist leaning side of politics (which, given where I live, is a lot of folk).

That's not really the sort of comment that will lead to a productive debate in real time, even if I did have a plethora of facts to drop off the top of my head, so I just held my tongue for the moment.

Here on my blog I have time to think through my response, and an easy way to cite references, so here goes...




We all were hoping for "change" to be dramatic.  Even though we should have known better, we kept imagining that "change" was meant to imply "revolution".  When we realized that the term would be preceded by "incremental"*, our dreams were deflated. 
I get it.  I really do.  Because I am one of those radical liberal lefty socialists.

But, here's the thing: He was elected President.  He was not elected Jesus.**  The President of the United States has a lot of power, but they don't act in a vacuum.  He doesn't even get to write the law.  Congress does that, and congress is split fairly evenly between right-wing Christian conservative, economically libertarian extremist Republicans, and socially moderate pro-corporate Democrats.

And despite what living in the Bay Area allows us to fantasize, the American people themselves are mostly split between the same two camps, which is why congress looks the way it does.

The other thing to remember is that Obama never claimed to represent everything you personally stand-for, what ever that may be.  He never even met you.  He never claimed he was going to end corporate personhood, or dismantle the US military, or return to the 90% top tax brackets of the 1940s.  He never said he would eliminate all US carbon emissions or ban all handguns. 
So it really isn't reasonable to hold him to those standards.

What he has done is those things which he said were his goals all along (so far as he has had the power to do so).
For example, he never said he would bring all US troops home.  What he did say is that he would take troops out of Iraq, and focus on the "global war on terror" and Al Qaeda, and that is exactly what he did.  Way back in 2001 we knew that the attacks on America were carried out by Saudi Arabian expats who had moved to Afghanistan to train - and Bush Jr used the fact that those countries are in the general region of "the Middle East" as an excuse to continue his dad's oil war in Iraq, which had zero to do with bringing down the twin towers.
But while in increasing the troops in Afghanistan was Obama keeping his word, at the same time, the number brought home from Iraq is larger than the number sent to Afghanistan, which means the grand total number of troops deployed has gone down overall under Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/the-qualitative-differenc_b_882893.html

He has said the number in Afghanistan will be reduced rather quickly as well, and there isn't much reason to doubt it, given that all his past time tables have been stuck to so far.

Simply removing all troops, all at once, was never realistic, and would very possibly do more harm than good.
Bush Jr started two wars.  Obama has ended one, and is working on ending the other.  That is not the same.  That is not worse.  It is the exact opposite.

Here's a few comments on his domestic policies:

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-chait/94211/are-obama-and-bush-really-the-same#

And here is a really long list of things he did, just in his first term, (all with references, in case you don't believe it).

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html
If you skip every other link in this post, at least click on this one, and skim through it.

Things which he has not just attempted to do, but successfully done.  Almost all of which Jr would not only not have done, but would not have even claimed to want to do.
Pretty much all 212 items in that list from the link above are things which are totally opposite what Bush did or would have done.

So there's that.
And for some people, it still leaves them feeling like he should be doing more.

You want to know why he hasn't done even more?

Instead of just reading, listening, and talking to articles, radio, and people that share your politics, you have to pay attention to what the other half of the country is saying.

There is a whole lot of insight there to be found, if you look for it.

The other side is just as mad at him - but generally for completely opposite reasons.  They already think he is a socialist who is destroying America by being anti-business, anti-oil, anti-religion... The things they hate him for include the very accomplishments we ignore when claiming he hasn't done anything positive.  Here's some examples, from a conservative anti-Obama site:



Obstructing oil drilling, restricting corporations, moving in the direction of national health care, spending tax money to encourage job growth, separating church from state.  Terrible, right?

Here's a much broader perspective, still from a conservative point of view, but with references, and at least a half-hearted attempt at impartiality:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Hussein_Obama

This is what he has to balance against your personal ideals.


This is why he was elected, and you and I and all of our friends were not.  Because we do not represent the American people.  Maybe we should, but we don't. 
Obama is on our side.  He is also moderate enough that he was able to get elected, so that he could get all the stuff done that he has.  Stuff that Bush didn't do, and McCain or Romney would never have done.



Now
All that said.

There is certainly a lack of meaningful difference between the two major political parties on a variety of significant issues.  This goes not just for Presidents and presidential candidates, it goes for congress, judges, governors, mayors, pretty much everyone with power in America.

A good list of examples is given by bvar22:

"*The Failed War on Drugs
*The Privatization of our Commons
*The support for Right Wing Death Squad governments in Latin America
and the demonization of the emerging populist true Democracies
*The Patriot Act and the marginalization of The Constitution
*The Use of our military to make the World safe for predation by the Global Corporations (AKA: The Permanent War on "Terror")
*The extra-constitutional perpetual War Time Powers of the Unitary Executive
*Forcing the American Working Class to compete with Slave Labor for their jobs (AKA: Free Trade, AKA:Race to the bottom)
*professed belief and religious submission to an "Invisible Hand" for which no proof exists.
*The militarization and national co-ordination of our local Police Departments
*Submission of the US Government and Legal System to Wall Street Banks
*The protection of the predatory For Profit Health Insurance Corporations
(Wall Street's Incestuous 1st Cousin)
*Austerity, "Entitlements", and "The Deficit"
(There IS some daylight between the Parties here,
but NOT on the Political Position,
only on HOW MUCH we are going to give the Already Rich.
*Lack of support for locally owned businesses in the War against the Big Boxes
(There ARE existing Fair Competition Laws & Regulations that could be used)
*The For Profit Private Prison Industrial Complex
*The Privatization of our Public Schools
*The Privatization of our Military
(Armed "Private" Contractors...AKA:Mercenaries)
*Subsidies for the Richest Corporations in The World"
 And others on that site add a few more:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2358757


But again, notice: Obama ran as a Democrat.  Not a Socialist.  Not Green Party.  Not Labor Party.  The entire democratic party accepts the premise of capitalism, and protecting America's interests abroad. 
That doesn't mean there aren't significant and meaningful differences between the two parties.  It just means that they don't have all of the differences we would prefer.

Given those two choices, the blue side is the closer one to where we need to be.  We can debate all day about whether its close enough, whether incremental change should be replaced with revolution, but the fact remains that there is a difference between the coalition of Christian fundamentalism and libertarian capitalists that make up the right and the moderate socially liberal pro-corporate left.

Throwing up our hands and crying "its not perfect, therefore its pointless" just helps things move even further to the right, as Republicans continue to vote, and we give up because its futile.
Lets continue pushing for more radical change, yes, but there is no reason we can't celebrate the incremental changes that come along the way.



*I would give credit to the person from whom I borrowed that line, except that I have no idea who it was!
** That one too!!

08 March 2013

summer project

I did everything from drawing the blueprints to pouring the concrete footings. The door initially opened directly on to the staircase, which I simply removed, and then reattached after the deck was finished. Took about 2 weeks (half of which was shopping time, and waiting for the concrete to dry), and cost just under $2000 (not including materials)



.











13 February 2013

Workouts for the Brain




Just like with fitness / health / strength, a lot of intelligence is genetic, and there is nothing you can do about that part. But, like with fitness, even more of it is environment/experiences, and we have 100% control of that.
All of these things will literally stimulate the creation of new neural connections, and (to a smaller extent) even brand new brain cells.  This has been definitively confirmed by plenty of independent tests (which is where the idea of "brain games" came from - although that is as yet unproven to be effective)
Plus, when you start to understand the underlying reasons for how things work, everything starts to make sense.  Once you learn the fundamentals of physics, mechanics, and chemistry, all mechanical things make sense, and you can reverse engineer anything, figure out how it works, and repair it.  Once you learn the fundamentals of human psychology and sociology, all human behavior makes sense, and you can avoid conflict and get people on your side, or at least their respect, no matter how different their life outlook may be.



Read - books, newspapers, magazines, fiction, non-fiction, classics, news, everything
Write
Learn brand new physical skills - juggling, sword fighting, slack lining, martial arts, unicycle riding, hand stands, sports, jump rope, cup stacking, card tricks, horseshoes...
Learn new non-physical skills - music, knitting, computer programming, a new language, reading braille, cold reading, clock repair...
Figure things out rather than looking them up
If that isn't possible, look up information rather than asking someone
Try to do something which you suspect you can't do
Learn about topics which don't particularly interest you
Take free online courses in a field completely different from the things you already know
Do all math problems mentally first
Do as much as possible without asking for help
When something just won't work, try starting over and looking at it a totally different way
Use waiting time to solve puzzles (cell phones are useful here)
Take free online IQ tests (not for the score, but for the challenge and practice)
Try to remember things, and then recall them later
Rearrange things so that you have to relearn habits -
switch nightstand sides with your partner, instal the light switches so that down is on and up is off, or move the silverware to a different drawer
Use your non-dominate hand to do motor skills -
like unlocking the door, dialing a phone, taking a card out of your wallet, or using a spoon or fork.
Do brand new things
Do old things in a completely different way
Do ordinary every day tasks with your eyes closed (just not driving or bike riding!)
Do something ordinary as fast as possible
Do something extra carefully, so that it is 100% perfect the first time
Every once in a while, do something the hard way on purpose
Take a moment to think about what you are about to say before you say anything
Take a moment to think about what you are about to do before you do anything
ASK QUESTIONS - 
any time you don't understand, or don't understand 100%, or there is any chance you might be misunderstanding - not just don't understand "what", but also why, ask questions.  Ask everyone, about everything; ask so many questions that it starts to get annoying, and then, if there is any remaining ambiguity, ask more questions.  Never accept "that's just how its done" as an answer for anything.
Avoid stress
Get enough sleep
Consistent physical exercise
Learn all of the common human logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy), irrational decisions (try Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely), subconscious prejudgments (Blink, by Malcom Gladwell),  advertising tricks, etc
Be self-aware - pay attention to your own feelings, and look out for prejudices, dogma, logical fallacies, etc.  Everyone has these things, but the more you look for them, the more you can avoid them
Read more


It might look like a lot of work at first, but learning is fun.  Once you get in the habit, it feels normal quickly.  And the effects will make literally every part of life better in every way, for as long as you live.

29 January 2013

What to Read?

I have been writing since 2006, and if my blogs were a MS Word document (as they are, as a backup), they would take up about 350 pages.
And a whole lot of that is just little random tidbits from my life that I found interesting the day I was writing.
Mixed in among those there are a number of in-depth essays on a wide variety of topics.  There has been no way to easily sift through all the random crap to find the good stuff.

Until now!
Wondering what to read next?
Of 200+ posts, these are (in my personal opinion) the top ~50 most interesting or useful


READ THIS FIRST:

The Common Thread
(17 June 2013)

Before you read anything else here, you must read The Common Thread.

Then go on to read whatever you like...



July 2006

Chapter IV; In Which I Recommend That Everyone Get a Motorcycle



Aug 2006

Numero Ocho; In Which I Point Out That Republicans Are Not Conservative At All





Book 10; Tn Which I List My Favorite Bible Verses




Item 12; In Which Abortion is NOT a Matter of the Right to Life, & NOT a Women's Rights Issue


Heading 14; In Which Reparations Are Still Due



Sept 2006

Portion 17; In Which True Christians Stay Kosher



Feb 2007

Free Market VS. Democracy: (1-0)



Organized Protest: Civil Obedience




Jun 2007

Sexual Dimorphism, and Caveman Love




July 2007

Dr Cox on Love; Heterosexual ManLove; and Does Enjoying Performing Fellatio Make a Guy Gay?



Oct 2007

Unborn Humans and Social Conservatives; Mixing Emotion and Politics




Nov 2007


Global Warming vs. Fascism; or, Why NASA Wouldn’t Have Stopped Apophis



Jan 2008

Buying a Home as an Investment



Feb 2008

Evil Will Always Win. But its OK


Education - Now, with References!!!!



Mar 2008

Average + Ordinary = Perfection; the (not so) Secret Formula to Happiness



Sept 2008

Anarchy VS Capitalism ... Anarchy=Capitalism



Dec 2008

The Root of the Problem (On economics and the creation of value)

Sex vs. Morality (Warren Was Right)



Jan 2009

A Little Perspective


Te Quiero



Feb 2009

FemDom vs. Feminism: Power Doesn't Come From Penetration



Travel and Work. And Hubris



Apr 2009

Gay Animals, Social Sex, and a Misunderstanding of Natural and Sexual Selection




June 2009


Capitalists, Libertarians, and Anarchists; Oh My!




July 2009

Race (Whites Still Winning)





Aug 2009


Slow Down. My Philosophy for Life also Applies to the Road



Sept 2009


Spoiled: The Economic Downturn, Luxury as Necessity, and "Struggling" in the Modern Economy



Dec 2009


The Wine Barrel (Population and Parenthood)



Apr 2010

Science!

Awareness of White Privilege VS Actually Working to Change It



Jan 2011

Be Healthy, My Friend

Be Healthy, part 2 (sub-section: Fat Management)



Oct 2011

Dramatically Reduce Unemployment - with no cost to government - by Instituting a 35 Hour Work Week




Jan 2012


Buying Bikes from Craigslist




March 2012


"Mad Max" Hypermiler Questions and Comments Answered





June 2012


Please Ride Your Bike in the Street.



June 2012

“A poor person never gave me a job”





July 2012


Adding an Overdrive (BW T-19 to ZF-5 transmission swap)



Sept 2012


Advertisements That Only Work Due to Ignorance and Stupidity



Dec 2012


The Last Big Question (the evolution of consciousness itself)

Comments from MMM Economics / Philosophy / Politics threads



Jan 2013

The Oldest Profession

What Does Our Gut Reaction to the Word "Rape" Say About Our Subconscious Beliefs About Women's Agency?



Feb 2013

Workouts for the Brain




Mar 2013

Obama = Bush Jr??? (hint: the answer is no)



Jun 2013

Trespassing in the Commune

Your Actions are (part of) Causing that Traffic Jam You're Stuck in*



Jul 2013

If I Were Elected King of the Country

Cops Shooting Unarmed Black Men

"Culture" and "Race" are not interchangeable




Aug 2013

Refuting the "Big Car = Safe" Myth



Feb 2014

Wearing the Skirt


Mar 2014

All of the money stuff I sometimes talk about, condensed

Apr 2014

You trust yourself WAY too much
May 2014
Healthcare: the last mainstream superstition


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

That's all for now.

I am no longer writing as consistently as I used to, so instead of checking in occasionally, I'd recommend just subscribing to new posts with the box on the top right of the page.