I find the subject of "thought" and "learning" to be fascinating, but I have no particular expertise on the topic. One of the things that fascinates me about thought is that we are not necessarily aware of our own complicated thought processes. I wonder, for instance, to what extent language influences our thought processes. When someone is raised without a spoken or written language, does some sort of internal "language" just develop spontaneously in their own brain?
Keeping in mind that I claim no particular expertise on the subject of thought, I would guess that one of the most basic aspects of thought and learning is placing things into categories, comparing one thing with another thing. For example, each new object a creature encounters is evaluated for whether or not it presents an immediate threat or danger. Another example is the way babies amuse us by their frequent difficulty distinguishing "food" from "non-food".
Every day of our lives, we encounter objects or situations that we have never encountered before -- at least not the IDENTICAL object or situation. One of the ways that we cope with this potentially-overwhelming onslaught of new information is by recognizing the similarities between different things, and unconsciously assigning categories and labels. If I am walking along a sidewalk and encounter a garden hose, it does not particularly matter to me whether I have ever seen that identical garden hose before. I have encountered garden hoses before, and I immediately label it a "garden hose" and place it in the same mental category as other garden hoses. Unless it is being brandished in a menacing manner, I do not view it as a threat. Though it bears certain similarities to a snake, I do NOT place it in the same category as "snakes". I MAY place it in a similar category to the child's toy I encounter nearby ("stuff someone left out in their yard"), even though it bears little physical resemblance to the toy.
I can place the garden hose in an infinite number of potential categories, such as "hoses", "things I might trip over", "yard care implements", "sources of water", "round", "hardware store items" ... the number of potential categories truly is infinite. A crucial, oft-overlooked point is that the categories are something I am imposing on the garden hose, consciously or unconsciously. They are not attributes of the garden hose, though a garden hose can be categorized based on its attributes. I may place the garden hose in the category "made of rubber" when in fact it is made of plastic, and this error on my part may or may not be significant, but it has no effect on the make-up of the garden hose.
The categories that we use depend on a complicated blend of ourselves -- our own backgrounds and priorities, among other things -- and the particular situation. If we are looking for something to rescue someone fallen down a well, then rope, cable, and hose may all fall in the same category. "Things to siphon gasoline" is a completely different category, but overlaps on "hose".
It is one thing to categorize inanimate objects. Categorizing activities, relationships, or animate objects grows much more complicated. Among the additional difficulties is that these things may be constantly changing. The relationship between two people, for example, varies from moment to moment, and is constantly evolving. It may be accurate enough to state that people are "friends" or "spouses", but if we try to apply more specific categories, we may be in for trouble.
This brings up the separate but related issue of definitions and terminology. There are well-known issues with the terms "fruit" versus "vegetable". Many things that are scientifically considered "fruits" are often categorized as "vegetables". If I agree to bring a "fruit salad" to a picnic, and I show up with a blend of tomato, squash, and cucumber, I may cause concern among those expecting apples, oranges, and bananas. In this case, I would be scientifically correct, but probably out of the mainstream.
"Mainstream" categories probably never precisely match our personal categories, just as our personal definitions of words do not precisely match dictionary definitions. This can cause conflicts when our categories differ in crucial ways from those around us. The person who asked me to bring a "fruit salad" to the picnic may be very disappointed with my choice of fruits.
Categories and labels are necessary and helpful while also being dangerous and obstructive. Once we label something, we are mentally assigning attributes to this thing that it may not possess, while potentially overlooking or denying attributes that it DOES possess. Even if we categorize it correctly, and assign only the correct attributes, by the very act of placing it in a certain category, we are shaping how we will view that thing.
In this "digital" era, we try to reduce infinite variation into finite variation. There are virtually infinite variations of what humans perceive as "color." To "digitize" color, we represent each color by a different number. The more numbers we use, the more variations of color we can represent. For some purposes, it is enough to have eight or nine colors. Blue is blue, red is red. Real life, though, suffers no such restrictions on the number of observable colors.
In effect, we now try to "digitize" everything. Uncomfortable with infinite variation, we seek a limited number of alternatives. We place things in arbitrarily-defined categories based on our own previous experiences, and then grow agitated if they do not seem to precisely "fit" these categories. Many a musician has fallen out of favor for performing music outside of their "category." A "country" musician can be criticized for not being "country" enough. Several famous musicians are credited with making the observation, "There are only two kinds of music, good music and bad music." Music, and so much of our universe, defies being confined into precise categories.
Categories and labels are strictly ways of looking at things. There is no "best" way to look at something, though certain ways may be most effective or appropriate for certain situations. While there is no "right" category or label, they can be "wrong", though sometimes, as in the case of fruits and vegetables, even "right" and "wrong" depend on the specifics of the situation.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Damages
I recently read an article on the World Wide Web regarding an incident which has led to a lawsuit. ALL I know about the incident is what I read in the article, and I do not know any of the people involved, whether the article is accurate, or whether perhaps it is all fiction. Regardless of the details or truth of the article, it raises some profound issues.
According to the article, a twelve-year-old was writing on her school desktop -- that is, writing directly on the desk (the article calls it "doodling") -- "with erasable green marker" and as a consequence was forcibly taken to "the dean's office" and searched before the police were summoned to arrest her. The police handcuffed her, took her to the precinct headquarters and detained her there, "handcuffed to a pole for more than two hours."
The article does not say exactly what happened next, but apparently she was released, eventually suspended from school, and "given eight hours of community service and ordered to write a book report and an essay about what she learned from the experience."
Later, "New York City officials acknowledged Gonzalez's arrest was a mistake." Now, the student and her mother are "suing the New York City Education Department and the New York Police Department for $1 million in damages, claiming excessive use of force and violation of the girl's rights in the ordeal, which Comacho has called a "nightmare.""
As I have already stated, ALL of my information comes from this one article, and I have no reason to believe it is totally accurate, but for the purpose of this discussion I will consider the entire situation hypothetical, and therefore exactly as I have just described it. Even in this oversimplified form, the issue is complicated.
Thoughtful, rational, intelligent people might have a full range of reactions to this incident. Some would say the student got what she deserved, or possibly should have been punished more severely. Probably more would agree that the authorities overreacted. Some might argue that the student deserves even more monetary compensation than one million dollars.
I am honestly not sure where I stand on this issue, but I am deeply troubled about the source of the million dollars sought by the student and her mother. Under our present system, any money that they receive is unlikely to come directly from any of the individuals involved. IF the money comes from "the New York City Education Department and the New York Police Department" then it is actually coming from taxpayers and the various sources of funding for those two departments. More likely, the money would come from insurance policies, in which case it is coming from a wider pool, and in a sense, from ALL of us. Either way, the money would be coming from a large number of individuals uninvolved with the case. One can argue that this is an abstraction, or irrelevant, but it remains true.
No matter how badly the student was mistreated by school officials and/or police, it is hard for me to accept the idea that she now deserves a million dollars from the rest of us -- and the money would indeed be coming from the rest of us. If instead the student and her mother were demanding that individuals involved in the case be reprimanded, fired, or personally punished in some other way, I could not argue -- but instead they are asking for a big chunk of cash from the rest of us.
There are those who would argue that the student has been deeply scarred by the experience, and for that I am willing to offer her an apology from all of society -- but not one million dollars. (I do not really see how a million dollars is going to un-scar her, though perhaps it would pay for therapy, if she chose to use it for that purpose.) Others will argue that the amount needs to be that large to "send a message"; to make the individuals involved reflect upon their misdeeds. I am unconvinced that this is effective, since the money is actually coming from a vast pool of individuals ... BUT, if this is truly the case, then perhaps I would be willing to have a million dollar fine imposed, but paid to some worthy charity or perhaps used to reduce the national debt. This would still "send a message" but it would not personally enrich the student and her mother at MY expense.
Finally, there are those who would argue that the money is coming from SUCH a vast pool that the effect on me personally is insignificant, and therefore I have no right to object. In a world with finite and dwindling resources, and many people in hardship, I cannot accept this idea. Even pennies add up, and millions add up more quickly.
This is the way I view most large monetary damage awards. For those who are truly deserving of a large financial settlement, I suggest we set up a system where anyone who wishes to contribute can do so. This student and her mother might end up with considerably MORE than a million dollars, which would be fine by me, as long as the money is contributed voluntarily. I am willing to offer sympathy, and I have no problem with punishing those who wronged you, but unless you can make the case that YOUR loss entitles you to MY money, keep your hands out of MY pockets!
According to the article, a twelve-year-old was writing on her school desktop -- that is, writing directly on the desk (the article calls it "doodling") -- "with erasable green marker" and as a consequence was forcibly taken to "the dean's office" and searched before the police were summoned to arrest her. The police handcuffed her, took her to the precinct headquarters and detained her there, "handcuffed to a pole for more than two hours."
The article does not say exactly what happened next, but apparently she was released, eventually suspended from school, and "given eight hours of community service and ordered to write a book report and an essay about what she learned from the experience."
Later, "New York City officials acknowledged Gonzalez's arrest was a mistake." Now, the student and her mother are "suing the New York City Education Department and the New York Police Department for $1 million in damages, claiming excessive use of force and violation of the girl's rights in the ordeal, which Comacho has called a "nightmare.""
As I have already stated, ALL of my information comes from this one article, and I have no reason to believe it is totally accurate, but for the purpose of this discussion I will consider the entire situation hypothetical, and therefore exactly as I have just described it. Even in this oversimplified form, the issue is complicated.
Thoughtful, rational, intelligent people might have a full range of reactions to this incident. Some would say the student got what she deserved, or possibly should have been punished more severely. Probably more would agree that the authorities overreacted. Some might argue that the student deserves even more monetary compensation than one million dollars.
I am honestly not sure where I stand on this issue, but I am deeply troubled about the source of the million dollars sought by the student and her mother. Under our present system, any money that they receive is unlikely to come directly from any of the individuals involved. IF the money comes from "the New York City Education Department and the New York Police Department" then it is actually coming from taxpayers and the various sources of funding for those two departments. More likely, the money would come from insurance policies, in which case it is coming from a wider pool, and in a sense, from ALL of us. Either way, the money would be coming from a large number of individuals uninvolved with the case. One can argue that this is an abstraction, or irrelevant, but it remains true.
No matter how badly the student was mistreated by school officials and/or police, it is hard for me to accept the idea that she now deserves a million dollars from the rest of us -- and the money would indeed be coming from the rest of us. If instead the student and her mother were demanding that individuals involved in the case be reprimanded, fired, or personally punished in some other way, I could not argue -- but instead they are asking for a big chunk of cash from the rest of us.
There are those who would argue that the student has been deeply scarred by the experience, and for that I am willing to offer her an apology from all of society -- but not one million dollars. (I do not really see how a million dollars is going to un-scar her, though perhaps it would pay for therapy, if she chose to use it for that purpose.) Others will argue that the amount needs to be that large to "send a message"; to make the individuals involved reflect upon their misdeeds. I am unconvinced that this is effective, since the money is actually coming from a vast pool of individuals ... BUT, if this is truly the case, then perhaps I would be willing to have a million dollar fine imposed, but paid to some worthy charity or perhaps used to reduce the national debt. This would still "send a message" but it would not personally enrich the student and her mother at MY expense.
Finally, there are those who would argue that the money is coming from SUCH a vast pool that the effect on me personally is insignificant, and therefore I have no right to object. In a world with finite and dwindling resources, and many people in hardship, I cannot accept this idea. Even pennies add up, and millions add up more quickly.
This is the way I view most large monetary damage awards. For those who are truly deserving of a large financial settlement, I suggest we set up a system where anyone who wishes to contribute can do so. This student and her mother might end up with considerably MORE than a million dollars, which would be fine by me, as long as the money is contributed voluntarily. I am willing to offer sympathy, and I have no problem with punishing those who wronged you, but unless you can make the case that YOUR loss entitles you to MY money, keep your hands out of MY pockets!
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Inches
In previous entries I have mentioned sports metaphors, while acknowledging my overall lack of skill and knowledge regarding most sports.
One of my favorite sports metaphors is "a game of inches", which I am pretty sure refers to football. Basically (and this is a huge oversimplification) the entire object of football is for one team to move the ball one hundred yards, against the other team which is striving to keep them from accomplishing this. Although the football field is over one hundred yards long, sometimes the teams find themselves in a situation in which a few inches will make the difference between success and failure. Officials may stop the game to take measurements to determine which team has been successful.
I am gradually becoming more and more convinced that much of life is "a game of inches" -- that the difference between happiness and unhappiness often comes down to inches rather than miles, or seconds rather than years, or pennies rather than dollars. Depending on how you look at it, this can be an uncomfortable philosophy.
Once in high school track, I lost a two-mile footrace -- in that case, a race lasting over eleven minutes -- by a fraction of a second. For the rest of my life, I have been haunted by the idea that if I had done something slightly differently, or tried slightly harder, I could have won that race. In some ways, it would be easier to believe that my opponent was simply faster, or having a better day, and I could not possibly have won -- but that does not seem to be the case.
When we fail to achieve a goal, it is often tempting to believe that the odds were somehow stacked against us and failure was almost certain, rather than that we came ever-so-close to succeeding, especially if the lack of success involves some tiny failing on our part.
This is perhaps even more true when it involves our effect on other people, and their effect on us. In an episode of the fictional sitcom "Becker", Becker asks to borrow a number two pencil from another student shortly after beginning an important written exam. The student, distracted by the request, miss-marks most of his answer sheet, fails the exam, and, as a direct consequence, is not admitted to medical school, and follows a different career path for the rest of his life. You can argue that the student SHOULD have been more careful, or SHOULD have re-taken the exam in the future, or somehow risen above the obstacle Becker placed in his path, but the (fictional) fact remains that if Becker had NOT asked for the pencil, the student's life would have unfolded in a different direction.
The "Becker" episode is a fictional example, but illustrates something that can and does happen in real life, probably more often than we can ever know. It is not comfortable to realize that we can dramatically alter either our own lives or the lives of others by something as minor as asking to borrow a pencil, and I am sure that many people would voice strong objections to the idea. To be fair, the Becker example is somewhat negative, while a small thing might also have a positive effect.
It is tempting to give credit or blame to "luck" or "fate" in the cases of small things having large impacts. Most collisions between automobiles would not have occurred if either vehicle had been at a slightly different location or at a slightly different time or under other slightly different circumstances. The fact that they did occur was "bad luck". At the same time, many collisions between automobiles involve predictable problems and preventable risks -- a drunk or otherwise distracted driver, or perhaps someone running late and speeding because someone had asked them for a number two pencil.
Real life is complicated. In real life, everything that happens involves a web of an infinite number of factors. Sometimes we can give credit or blame to one obvious factor, such as a particular act of valor changing the course of a battle. More often, success or failure depends on a multitude of factors both large and small, and changing any one of them might change the outcome. Without a time machine, we can never be certain what effect any change would have produced (though we can have hypothetical discussions, run computer simulations, and otherwise engage in speculation).
I could give other examples of seemingly insignificant things having large effects, but, as I have stated, this is an uncomfortable idea, and will always produce a certain amount of resistance. Especially, it is uncomfortable to accept that something very small we have or have not done has had a large negative effect on ourselves or someone else. In the case of someone else, we refuse to acknowledge that their problem is our fault -- they should have been able to overcome the tiny problem we threw at them. In the case of ourselves, it seems preferable to blame outside forces, or overwhelming forces.
I realize that I am simultaneously arguing that we are reluctant to admit the large negative impact we may have on others, while arguing that many of our own problems that we blame on others are in fact due to small failings on our own part. This may seem inconsistent. Furthermore, I am largely ignoring the small things that have a large positive impact.
Truth is complicated.
One of my favorite sports metaphors is "a game of inches", which I am pretty sure refers to football. Basically (and this is a huge oversimplification) the entire object of football is for one team to move the ball one hundred yards, against the other team which is striving to keep them from accomplishing this. Although the football field is over one hundred yards long, sometimes the teams find themselves in a situation in which a few inches will make the difference between success and failure. Officials may stop the game to take measurements to determine which team has been successful.
I am gradually becoming more and more convinced that much of life is "a game of inches" -- that the difference between happiness and unhappiness often comes down to inches rather than miles, or seconds rather than years, or pennies rather than dollars. Depending on how you look at it, this can be an uncomfortable philosophy.
Once in high school track, I lost a two-mile footrace -- in that case, a race lasting over eleven minutes -- by a fraction of a second. For the rest of my life, I have been haunted by the idea that if I had done something slightly differently, or tried slightly harder, I could have won that race. In some ways, it would be easier to believe that my opponent was simply faster, or having a better day, and I could not possibly have won -- but that does not seem to be the case.
When we fail to achieve a goal, it is often tempting to believe that the odds were somehow stacked against us and failure was almost certain, rather than that we came ever-so-close to succeeding, especially if the lack of success involves some tiny failing on our part.
This is perhaps even more true when it involves our effect on other people, and their effect on us. In an episode of the fictional sitcom "Becker", Becker asks to borrow a number two pencil from another student shortly after beginning an important written exam. The student, distracted by the request, miss-marks most of his answer sheet, fails the exam, and, as a direct consequence, is not admitted to medical school, and follows a different career path for the rest of his life. You can argue that the student SHOULD have been more careful, or SHOULD have re-taken the exam in the future, or somehow risen above the obstacle Becker placed in his path, but the (fictional) fact remains that if Becker had NOT asked for the pencil, the student's life would have unfolded in a different direction.
The "Becker" episode is a fictional example, but illustrates something that can and does happen in real life, probably more often than we can ever know. It is not comfortable to realize that we can dramatically alter either our own lives or the lives of others by something as minor as asking to borrow a pencil, and I am sure that many people would voice strong objections to the idea. To be fair, the Becker example is somewhat negative, while a small thing might also have a positive effect.
It is tempting to give credit or blame to "luck" or "fate" in the cases of small things having large impacts. Most collisions between automobiles would not have occurred if either vehicle had been at a slightly different location or at a slightly different time or under other slightly different circumstances. The fact that they did occur was "bad luck". At the same time, many collisions between automobiles involve predictable problems and preventable risks -- a drunk or otherwise distracted driver, or perhaps someone running late and speeding because someone had asked them for a number two pencil.
Real life is complicated. In real life, everything that happens involves a web of an infinite number of factors. Sometimes we can give credit or blame to one obvious factor, such as a particular act of valor changing the course of a battle. More often, success or failure depends on a multitude of factors both large and small, and changing any one of them might change the outcome. Without a time machine, we can never be certain what effect any change would have produced (though we can have hypothetical discussions, run computer simulations, and otherwise engage in speculation).
I could give other examples of seemingly insignificant things having large effects, but, as I have stated, this is an uncomfortable idea, and will always produce a certain amount of resistance. Especially, it is uncomfortable to accept that something very small we have or have not done has had a large negative effect on ourselves or someone else. In the case of someone else, we refuse to acknowledge that their problem is our fault -- they should have been able to overcome the tiny problem we threw at them. In the case of ourselves, it seems preferable to blame outside forces, or overwhelming forces.
I realize that I am simultaneously arguing that we are reluctant to admit the large negative impact we may have on others, while arguing that many of our own problems that we blame on others are in fact due to small failings on our own part. This may seem inconsistent. Furthermore, I am largely ignoring the small things that have a large positive impact.
Truth is complicated.