I Am Not a Number

     But are you, in fact?

     Even if you don't know the name "Big Data" (in which case click here), you've encountered it somewhere. It's used in election predictions (remember Mr. Nate Silver?), for Google's and Facebook's "custom advertisements", and hundreds of other things besides. The general, synopsized idea is that if you get enough data on people, you can predict what they will do, what they will buy, and what they will think.

     "But I have free will!"

     Yes. Yes, you do. And by the logic of Big Data, you will exercise your free will roughly the same every time. Consider: you have free will in choosing what music you listen to, but if you're a metalhead you're going to pick metal, and if you think you're a gangster living on the North Shore you're going to pick rap. People are creatures of habit. On the other hand, people are also prone to shaking your assumptions. To go back to the election example, there were people confidently predicting a Romney victory on Monday night, and they had numbers to "prove" it. I use the quotes because, obviously, Romney didn't win.

It's a big number. And you know what?

It doesn't mean anything.

     Which brings me to my main point: people are too complex to be represented by a single number or statistic, or even a half dozen. The human brain has between eighty and one hundred billion neurons in it, depending who you ask. Each of those interacts with its neighbors at the speed of electricity to form a knot, each knot interacts with others to form a lobe, and all the lobes of your brain work together to create you. And you're going to summarize the results of that in a couple of digits? Give me a break.

     There's one other problem with Big Data that the New York Times recently brought to my attention. It can isolate you from anything you don't already agree with. If you only read conservative e-newsletters or whatever, then you're only going to see conservative results when Google, Facebook, or anyone else uses a search customized engine for you. To hark back to the election example, searches customized for conservatives were never going to show them posts from anyone who, like Mr. Silver, calculated that Obama would win.

     What is the right thing to do, in a scenario like this? Because obviously leaving everyone to stagnate in a pool of "autopropoganda" isn't it. Do we eliminate the custom search, when it can help to eliminate false positives, like getting ads for plasma TVs when you're researching blood plasma, because Big Data is too much like Big Brother, an electronic monitor telling you what to read? Do we insist that tech gurus invent the perfect search? (Hint: that's difficult, bordering on impossible, and ergo rather impractical.) Is there any middle ground at all, or are we doomed to live in a world of filtered information? Please comment with any ideas for a solution, or simply your opinions on Big Data.

Triangulating a Solution

     By now, the debates have been raging for a few days over how to implement safety standards in overseas factories. The Triangle fire a century ago ignited a tremendous backlash against dangers in factories - in the US. For a long time, no one has really been thinking about outsourced production. Now, human rights advocates draw attention to fire hazards, hot and crowded working conditions, and injury rates; meanwhile, savvy economists point out that increased safety precautions would increase costs, and a majority of Americans would prefer not to spend more money than absolutely necessary. (For more, see Sean's and Jake's recent posts.)




     When two sides are at an impasse, the solution is cold hard facts. How about this one? The improvements demanded would increase prices by "roughly 3 percent", according to this NY Times article. On the oft-decried "$5 T-shirt", that would mean an increase of fifteen cents. You know the old saying If everyone gave a nickel, we'd be done here by sundown? Well, if everyone gave three nickels, we'd have safer working conditions in Bangladesh.


     Or how about this fact? Even after some retailers claimed to have ceased ordering from unsafe factories, their garments have still arrived on the shelves through subcontractors and middlemen. This problem is perhaps reminiscent of the blood minerals trouble in the electronics industry, and the solution is the same. Demand transparency from the people you're buying from. Make them tell you where they got the product, and if they're real weasels, make them show you some provenance. Then showcase your new policy, like Apple did, and not only have you helped save lives, but you don't even lose face with your customers.

     Of course, these are people we're talking about, and they're not always rational. Are "big name" stores likely to implement a solution? If so, how long will it take, and will the changes be real or just cosmetic? If not, why? and what can we do about it? Comment please!

I'm Going to Laugh at You on the Twenty-Second

     By this point everyone and their little brother has heard about the "Mayan Prophecy", the idea that the ancient civilization predicted the end of the world on December 21st of this year. That's less than three weeks away now, and people are going just a little loopy about it.

     It is worth noting that the Mayans did not predict that the world would end on 12/21/2012. All they did was choose to end one cycle of their calendar, and begin another. Using that to predict doomsday is like saying that the world would end every December 31st when people swap out their calendars for the new year.

     For whatever reason, this apocalypse prediction has received record amounts of attention, but it's not the only one out there. Cult leaders, New Age pseudo-scientists, and overly panicked sci-fi writers have been predicting the end of the world for over a century, and darned but if the sun don't insist on rising the next day, but they attract followers in swarms regardless. If one was to count all these failed Ragnaroks by way of tally marks, you could probably cover both sides of an 8.5x11 sheet of paper. But the continuation of the world hasn't stopped the continuation of prophecies, nor of people's belief in them.

     American media hasn't been shy about cashing in on all the hullabaloo, either. Nat Geo has no less than three 2012 TV shows, including one that overtly emphasizes that yes, the world will end. (They also have the series Doomsday Preppers.) There's also been a movie and multiple videogames making a quick buck out of the panic (although in terms of chaos, the USA is only the second most 2012ed country; the blue ribbon goes to Russia).

     Why? is the eternal question. What is so appealing about the end of all things? Perhaps it's comforting to have an unsolvable problem because you have an excuse not to solve it. As Lois Bujold wrote, "If nothing can be done, then you're not some kind of s*** for not doing it." Is there something about the way the world is today that makes people want to tear it all down and start from scratch? That makes them sound like anarchists. Do they have some idea that by believing in the day of reckoning they can survive it? Is it just handy to know when everything will come crumbling down, so that they're ready for it? Comment please, and explain these crazy humans to me.

Cascade

     Hurricane Sandy is long since gone. The damage to New York City and the rest of New England is enormous, but slowly but surely they are rebuilding. The devastation is over, right?

     Wrong.

     Disasters in man-made areas such as large cities are prone to an effect called the cascade by scientists. Simply phrased, the aftershocks of a destructive event can be, and usually are, the parts that authorities are hardest-pressed to combat. In this case, there are those who would take advantage of the chaos:

     Unethical hotel and gas station owners are facing charges of price gouging, or increasing prices to an extreme degree, in order to make of profit from people's desperation. Last year, after Irene, while gouging was present, it was present to a much lesser degree. Why is it so severe this time?

     

Federal efforts towards rebuilding could result in problems with fraud, similarly to the aftermath of Katrina, where unscrupulous individuals siphoned off "at least $600 million". While no evidence of theft from Sandy relief funds has surfaced, the government's necessarily increased caution has slowed progress.

     Even more horrifyingly, a murderer or murderers unknown are making use of the ruin to hide their victims' bodies. At least two have been found, and park district workers are carefully checking for more corpses hidden in the debris.

     It appalls me how some people feed off catastrophe. Do they have no empathy, or what? You can't convince me that a quarter of the hotel, gas station, and grocery store owners in the area are a bunch of sociopaths. More importantly, though, why can't the government prevent these things? What can, and should, our leaders be doing differently to limit the cascade?

Forecast Grim for NYC Marathon

     Over the past weeks, I have noticed a number of blog posts concerning sports. Which makes sense - athletics are a significant part of any culture - but I had been at a loss as to how to join in, not being involved in any school sports or analogous activities. Then I found this New York Times article about the NYC marathon. The marathon is an event that draws a massive crowd from across the globe, or rather it was; this year's race has been canceled in order to direct more forces towards repairing the destruction of Hurricane Sandy.

     This is a historic occurrence, marking the first time that New York City has canceled the marathon since its beginning in 1970. The event has persevered through heat, humidity, and freezing rain. Even the 2001 race, two months after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, went ahead in the kind of we're-still-here response that the War on Terror group discussed in class on Friday. Local authorities say that holding the race would be detrimental to aiding those hit hardest by the storm, but others state that now, as eleven years ago, the race would be a morale boost to the entire city. NYC responds to this by saying the marathon has divided the city already, contrary to its purpose. Then beyond the morale and morality arguments are the economic ones. Thousands of people flew to New York expecting a marathon; how are they to be reimbursed?
     It is my opinion that the race should go forward, as a demonstration that even the power of Mother Nature can't stop the city that never sleeps. There ought to be a way to have the race without interfering with disaster relief, and that the city of New York's motivation is simply that it wishes to deal with one crisis at a time. While prioritization is a wonderful tool, couldn't they just delay the race, instead of immediately resorting to such a drastic step as cancellation? Feel free to comment with any ideas you have.

Three's a Crowd

     I did not know there was a presidential debate on Tuesday until I was told about it yesterday. From the show of hands or lack of same, neither did most people. The Republicans were not present. Neither were the Democrats. So who could have possibly been there?

     Just the other four candidates, that's all. No one you'd know.

     Held in Chicago, the debate featured would-be presidents from the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, and Justice parties. I'd only ever heard of two of those before I read this New York Times article. I had never heard any of the candidates' names. And I wouldn't have had a clue what their views were like without this article. I wouldn't have expected the Green Party to have a stance on much besides the environment. I would never have expected anyone so opposed to the idea of the melting pot to be a part of a party called Constitution. And the only time the Libertarian party was mentioned to me was by an adult, to remain nameless, who compared them to anarchists.

     Why does America pay so little attention to these "also-runnings"? In the land of the voice of the many, how can two people monopolize our attention? Consider the effort these four people have gone to, and are going to, and how they must feel, being marginalized like that. Consider also that, in their debate, the third-party candidates covered issues that have not been touched by the the other two. Furthermore, note the lack of theatricality in their speeches, and how it contrasts to Obama's and Romney's incessant back-and-forth.

     What are your opinions of the third-party presidential candidates? Are they an important part of America and minority viewpoint, or are they wasting their time and should just give up? How do they affect the election? Do they at all?

It's Not the Predestination But the Journey

     Tuesday in class, we discussed a main tenet of Puritanism: "predestination". Basically, this is the concept that God arbitrarily decides who goes to heaven and who goes to h-e-double-hockey-sticks. While good behavior is an indicator that He may have chosen someone, they cannot change God's mind with their behavior. This is reminiscent of another belief system we talked about: college apps. This is how the stereotypical college application procedure goes:

     1: I go to the college visit.
     2: On the basis of very little information about my character or academic abilities, the people from the college decide if they will let me attend their school.
     3: I bow my head and accept my fate. If I have been chosen for a good (or "good" - but I would need another post to discuss that) school, I will naturally act like the perfect person I am.

     Phrased like that, it does seem kind of odd, doesn't it? But the logic is nearly identical to that of predestination. The only real change is the substitution of one higher power (the college admissions board) for another (God). Extreme difference? Well, maybe. You would be surprised at how widespread the image is, of college admissions boards as mysterious entities whose minds cannot be swayed by our actions, whose thought processes cannot be understand by mere mortals, and who have total control over our destinies. Call me crazy, but that sounds a lot like the technical definition of a deity to me.

     Which raises the question: why do people seem to enjoy thinking this way? Because it takes the burden of responsibility off their shoulders? Because people are naturally pessimistic and mopey? Something else completely unexpected? Comment please! I want to know what you think.

Yeah Right

     It's my right. Three of the most-repeated words in this country, it seems to me. And yet these rightful people can be seriously wrong at times. In class, we discussed the sacred First Amendment - protector of free speech since 1776, right? Well, as noted on Thursday, it wasn't the all-powerful shield it's treated as today until a few decades ago. And there are still things you cannot say or believe. Think we'd be better off without government? That's anarchism - illegal in the US since the early 1900s.
     In all honesty, there are rights people think they have that not only they don't, but they shouldn't. An often-heard cry is I have the right to my opinion. Consider this: your friend steps off a curb as a car is coming. Since he or she is sound of mind, they are obviously of the opinion that no cars are nearby. Do they have the right to keep that opinion? Or, since all rights imply that others have duties, is it your duty to let them keep that opinion? Heck no. In fact, I would call it your duty to take that opinion away from them ASAP. The counterexample most offer in this context is that they have a right to believe in things like God. Very well. You have the right to opinion - provided it can't be disproved. Qualifiers are important.
     How about the right to health? Well, as mentioned above, all rights imply duties on the behalf of others. So if you have the right to health, but old age takes away your healthiness, whose duty is it to cure senescence? That's an impossible task. Clearly one of our suppositions must be false. You may have the right for your health to not be interfered with by other people (or yourself - see my comment on the AS main page), but just saying you have a right to health leaves out, again, qualifiers.

     For more on rights, real, qualified, or imaginary, see Jamie White's Crimes Against Logic.

     Thoughts? or if you think I'm just a ranting lunatic, comment.

Taking It on Faith: Thinking for Oneself in the Presence of Authority

     In class on Friday, we discussed the First Amendment, with special focus on when and where it can be limited. The limitations that caught my attention the most were those imposed on teachers. As both government employees and potential role models to their students, they are often prevented, and usually discouraged, from airing their political beliefs, religious beliefs, or generally anything controversial that isn't in the lesson plan.
     The logic behind this seems straightforward at first glance: if a teacher, the local figure of authority, says anything about anything, the student is likely to accept it as truth without further thought, similarly to how they believe what their parents say. After all, most children with religious parents grow up to follow the same religion, so it makes sense, right?
     Well, not always. Their are two key forces to consider. For starters, at a certain age kids begin to question authority. The colloquial name for this is "teenage rebellion". So while limitations on teachers' self-expression may be logical in K-8 schools, by the time high school rolls around the logic is decidedly weakened.
     The second variable is that kids are often not considered capable of thinking for themselves. Which is ridiculous! I can think for myself, and do so regularly, and I would bet that most of my classmates who read this do too. And once students are capable of taking the facts (or failing hard information, the data they're given) and drawing their own conclusions from it, censoring teachers makes zero sense. In fact, from my point of view it cuts down on how interesting and informative their classes are.
Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment please.

Divided We Vote

     I have recently noticed a number of AIS blog posts concerned with election factionalism - that is, the way people tend to pick a political party and vote for it, come hell or high water or an inferior candidate winding up in the White House. The question, usually lacking in an answer, is "Why?" Why would anyone allow others to choose their president? What could possibly be so attractive about this mindlessness, in a country that prides itself on individualism and free thought?

     I discovered one theory in Influence, by Robert Cialdini. In once chapter, titled "Commitment and Consistency", he observes that "once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter... pressures to behave consistently with that commitment" (57). In other words, when someone identifies themselves as Democrat or Republican, they are pushed towards voting Left or Right. When done to a moderate degree, this is logical: any given political party has general ideas, such as more government, less government, gun rights, minority rights, et cetera ad infinitum, that match the beliefs of those who identify with them. There is no issue with party allegiance and loyalty, in general.

     In individual cases, though, problems arise. Typically, there will be some characteristic of the party's candidate that breaks with what voters believe. I know staunch Republicans who hated the idea of Bush getting a second term; I know zealous Democrats who wouldn't vote Obama this year if you paid them. And they could be reasoning from flawed concepts -  Obamacare probably won't destroy the world on December 21st, 2012 - but if you play to the party line, and don't think out an individual choice, then you are surrendering a pillar of American values: the right to choose your government.

The American Dream and Science Fiction

     In class today we discussed values that make America unique: social mobility, rugged individualism, and the self-made man. While lived out in reality in the tales of people like Chris McCandless, these themes also appear in novels, especially science fiction. Specifically, I am reminded of Insignia, by S. J. Kincaid, a story I recently read concerning computerized warfare in the near future.

     Tom Raines begins as a "scrawny, stupid little kid" with no real talents except in video games. He attends school through virtual reality, and gets abysmal grades even there. Escape from his pathetic life seems impossible until his abilities in cyberspace get the attention of a military recruiter looking for gamers to pilot computer-controlled spaceships for the Americans and their allies. After this one boost, however, Raines has to prove himself, and he does. In this he is a perfect embodiment of both the self-made man and social mobility, since the pilots are "the smartest human beings alive", the feted elite of the entire planet - quite a step up from the loser he started out as. He exemplifies rugged individualism as well; when corporate sponsors attempt to contract him as hot new talent, Raines tells them in no uncertain terms where they can put their endorsement deals.

     Science fiction might be just that - fiction - but truly great novels must echo profound values, and when your target audience is the US, nothing runs deeper than the American Dream.