I have recently got back into playing chess a little bit. I kind of got out of it when I was _really_ young, got really interested, and then realized it was more memorization and less creative thought than I originally thought. Particularly, there are a number of opening moves you have to regurgitate to some extent.
However, there is a variant of chess known as the "Bobby Fischer variant", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960.
There is another variant based on this known as "Shuffle Chess", but I don't like this because it still seems to force the general play of the opening to get people to try and castle rapidly.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Weird Habit
Almost every day I check the personals on Craigslist. I don't check the Casual Encounters because I don't want an STD. I don't check Women Seeking Men because I think that internet dating is cheating in the game of life. So, what do I check?
Missed Connections.
I have this fantasy that one day I'll read a missed connection that describes me. It would be such an incredible feeling. To have someone think of me so much they willing risk getting psychos and spam to find me. I don't feel like this is cheating in the game of life because it's not dating. It's seeking.
One day I hope to find one describing me. Even if I'm taken when it happens I'd still be ecstatic.
And I know exactly how I would respond. With a picture of myself and a very short message.
"Hello. Is it me you're looking for?"
Missed Connections.
I have this fantasy that one day I'll read a missed connection that describes me. It would be such an incredible feeling. To have someone think of me so much they willing risk getting psychos and spam to find me. I don't feel like this is cheating in the game of life because it's not dating. It's seeking.
One day I hope to find one describing me. Even if I'm taken when it happens I'd still be ecstatic.
And I know exactly how I would respond. With a picture of myself and a very short message.
"Hello. Is it me you're looking for?"
Bookshelves
I debated with myself for a long time yesterday, but I did it, I got a new bookshelf. Not the cheap 2.5 shelf $15 version, but the nice, tall $30 5 shelves version.
It is spectacular, and it rises and looms over my bed like a colossus.
Also, my books don't need to be stacked haphazardly on top of my other bookcases, so that's nice.
It is spectacular, and it rises and looms over my bed like a colossus.
Also, my books don't need to be stacked haphazardly on top of my other bookcases, so that's nice.
Reverse Outlaw
I was going to Wal-Mart the other day, came upon a yield sign, and then I slowed _way_ down and looked both ways--i.e., what you're supposed to do at a yield sign. The car behind me starts honking at me.
My immediate reaction?
I started playing 'reverse outlaw'. I went 5-10 mph below the speed limit, slowed down way, way before stop lights and stop signs. Just acted like some old, old grandma.
My immediate reaction?
I started playing 'reverse outlaw'. I went 5-10 mph below the speed limit, slowed down way, way before stop lights and stop signs. Just acted like some old, old grandma.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Internet Desensitization
Normally when you read about desensitization it's to violence or sex but not this time. I've got a different bone to pick with the internet today. Remember back when you were growing up and all week you'd look forward the newest episode of your favorite show. Do you remember the sense of excitement you got from seeing the previews all week? Do you remember how disheartening it was when you missed the new episode? You couldn't hope for a rerun for at least six months. Sure, you could tape it but what if you couldn't? You were screwed, plain and simple. You couldn't ask your friends what happened because kids are horrible at remembering their lunch, let alone the numerous skits on an entire episode of All That.
Think about how our television watching habits are handled today. If we miss an episode we can always watch it online. And I'm not sure I'm okay with that. Lately I've been watching How I Met Your Mother all the way through. I've watched seasons 1-6 and am currently on episode 8 of season 7. That's nearly 53 hours of television over the course of 2 weeks. That means that during one week I've spent more than an entire day watching one show. How ridiculous is that? It says a lot about me and my schedule but also how readily available it is to watch a show.
My question is, is it such a good thing? Should I be able to devote entire days to watching a show that on a fairly consistent basis breaks my heart? Or does the blame fall less on the internet or more onto me for allowing myself to devote that much time to watching moving pictures of fictional characters? Maybe it is me who's to blame. Maybe I shouldn't watch so much damn tv. Maybe I should spend more time reading the bible or exercising. Maybe I should stop starting sentences with the word maybe.
Maybe...
Think about how our television watching habits are handled today. If we miss an episode we can always watch it online. And I'm not sure I'm okay with that. Lately I've been watching How I Met Your Mother all the way through. I've watched seasons 1-6 and am currently on episode 8 of season 7. That's nearly 53 hours of television over the course of 2 weeks. That means that during one week I've spent more than an entire day watching one show. How ridiculous is that? It says a lot about me and my schedule but also how readily available it is to watch a show.
My question is, is it such a good thing? Should I be able to devote entire days to watching a show that on a fairly consistent basis breaks my heart? Or does the blame fall less on the internet or more onto me for allowing myself to devote that much time to watching moving pictures of fictional characters? Maybe it is me who's to blame. Maybe I shouldn't watch so much damn tv. Maybe I should spend more time reading the bible or exercising. Maybe I should stop starting sentences with the word maybe.
Maybe...
Myth: Everything is done by people less than thirty
I kind of wish the T.V. show "Bullshit!" explored this idea, because personally I think it is bogus.
The common argument goes something like this: human cognitive development peaks in your twenties and then goes on a steady, steep decline afterwards, given this, and a load of cherry-picked testimonial examples (Gauss did all of his most important work when he was in his teens!), we can conclude that all important work is done by humans less than the age of thirty and if you're older than this you might as well commit suicide.
First of all, let's assume for the moment that it is true. The conclusion that under thirty year old people should be subsidized (where I use 'subsidize' in the loose cultural sense of the word) for the sake of their greater potential does not immediately follow. Take, for example, the Fields medal. Personally, I hate the Fields medal (I like the recipients of the Fields medal and their work, though). Why? Because it generates a horrible culture. It generates a culture that I feel is much less likely to go after the "long hunch" (http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_johnson_where_good_ideas_come_from.html). I recall reading an article, that I can not find so of course you'll take my word for it, about an Indian fellow studying biology. His parents chastised him for going after such a pursuit, saying that only young men could create new developments. To the contrary, he found in his field that only the biologists that had at least a decade of work tended to get results. Maybe the true and noble results are the ones that require the dedication and lifetime pursuit that a thirty year old can not necessarily give. When we encourage this statement of "Thirty year olds rule" I think it is wise to keep in mind the implicit assumption "Forty year olds drool," and that this has a deleterious effect on the great potential in those older than thirty, and the deleterious effect on pursuits that require a really long time.
Next, let's assume that the cognitive fact is true, it does not immediately follow that the potential of thirty year olds vastly outweigh the cognitive potential of those older. In an effort to be concise on this point, I shall only leave a reference here to the keyword, "crystallized intelligence."
Next, I doubt the 'cognitive fact'. Again, in an effort to be concise, I shall only state, "neuroplasticity." However, even upon doing only this, I should probably also provide an explanation for the observation of apparent decline that seems common. For this, I offer the following alternate explanation: maybe people's tastes actually...change over time! For example, most decline is observed to happen by the time someone is thirty--now, think for a minute, what tends to happen by the time someone turns thirty? Hint: they get married! Just in my personal observation, a lot of people I know tend to become fairly scarce when they start to get serious about dating and relationships and what-not.
Finally, I am kind of hatin' on the cherry-picked idols held up for worship. For every Gauss and Galois there is a Wiles, Halmos, and Sylvester.
In fact, let me spend some time on Sylvester (to save people some time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joseph_Sylvester).
Sylvester is, few and far between, my second favorite mathematician (I'll spend another post on my favorite mathematician: Halmos), particularly because he destroys this "Thirty year olds do everything" argument. Yes, it is true, he did a lot of work in his 30's.
But then he did a lot of work in his 60's.
And again in his 80's up until his death (according to Bell's biography of the man).
In fact, Sylvester is the antithesis of a lot of trends and memes you hear about how work should be done and how thinking should be thought of. Cayley was prim, proper, organized, and had an incredible memory. Sylvester was impromptu, rambunctious, and forgot his own thesis result. Sylvester would be the idol I would hold to the "long hunch" and rambling intelligence.
For those who still hold tightly to the "Thirties rule, forties drool" dogma, at the very least, please have some sympathy for those who don't.
The common argument goes something like this: human cognitive development peaks in your twenties and then goes on a steady, steep decline afterwards, given this, and a load of cherry-picked testimonial examples (Gauss did all of his most important work when he was in his teens!), we can conclude that all important work is done by humans less than the age of thirty and if you're older than this you might as well commit suicide.
First of all, let's assume for the moment that it is true. The conclusion that under thirty year old people should be subsidized (where I use 'subsidize' in the loose cultural sense of the word) for the sake of their greater potential does not immediately follow. Take, for example, the Fields medal. Personally, I hate the Fields medal (I like the recipients of the Fields medal and their work, though). Why? Because it generates a horrible culture. It generates a culture that I feel is much less likely to go after the "long hunch" (http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_johnson_where_good_ideas_come_from.html). I recall reading an article, that I can not find so of course you'll take my word for it, about an Indian fellow studying biology. His parents chastised him for going after such a pursuit, saying that only young men could create new developments. To the contrary, he found in his field that only the biologists that had at least a decade of work tended to get results. Maybe the true and noble results are the ones that require the dedication and lifetime pursuit that a thirty year old can not necessarily give. When we encourage this statement of "Thirty year olds rule" I think it is wise to keep in mind the implicit assumption "Forty year olds drool," and that this has a deleterious effect on the great potential in those older than thirty, and the deleterious effect on pursuits that require a really long time.
Next, let's assume that the cognitive fact is true, it does not immediately follow that the potential of thirty year olds vastly outweigh the cognitive potential of those older. In an effort to be concise on this point, I shall only leave a reference here to the keyword, "crystallized intelligence."
Next, I doubt the 'cognitive fact'. Again, in an effort to be concise, I shall only state, "neuroplasticity." However, even upon doing only this, I should probably also provide an explanation for the observation of apparent decline that seems common. For this, I offer the following alternate explanation: maybe people's tastes actually...change over time! For example, most decline is observed to happen by the time someone is thirty--now, think for a minute, what tends to happen by the time someone turns thirty? Hint: they get married! Just in my personal observation, a lot of people I know tend to become fairly scarce when they start to get serious about dating and relationships and what-not.
Finally, I am kind of hatin' on the cherry-picked idols held up for worship. For every Gauss and Galois there is a Wiles, Halmos, and Sylvester.
In fact, let me spend some time on Sylvester (to save people some time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joseph_Sylvester).
Sylvester is, few and far between, my second favorite mathematician (I'll spend another post on my favorite mathematician: Halmos), particularly because he destroys this "Thirty year olds do everything" argument. Yes, it is true, he did a lot of work in his 30's.
But then he did a lot of work in his 60's.
And again in his 80's up until his death (according to Bell's biography of the man).
In fact, Sylvester is the antithesis of a lot of trends and memes you hear about how work should be done and how thinking should be thought of. Cayley was prim, proper, organized, and had an incredible memory. Sylvester was impromptu, rambunctious, and forgot his own thesis result. Sylvester would be the idol I would hold to the "long hunch" and rambling intelligence.
For those who still hold tightly to the "Thirties rule, forties drool" dogma, at the very least, please have some sympathy for those who don't.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
How do you post on a blog about nothing? Would I have to never post? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the blog existing? It kind of seems redundant, doesn't it? Would all the posts have to follow circle logic and be posts about circles? I'm not sure that's right, is it? I guess not, right? Is it possible to read a blog about nothing? Can you read nothing? If there's nothing on the page are you truly reading it? Does anybody really know? I'm not sure I understand, do you? Can I post text in the shape of a circle? That would really drive in the circle logic thing, right? Is it a blog if there's nothing on it? Is it a food if it's not to be eaten? This is all really confusing, or is it just me? I'm not sure I can handle this kind of pressure, can you? How do you post on a blog about nothing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)