Yaiven's Journal

I thought I was very clever when coming up with the title, but a quick google search reveals that other people have as well. *lol* Oh well, they may not be talking about precisely the same thing.

As our lunchtime Volleyball game was cancelled today, I ended up reading some of the Psychology Today blogs instead and came across these entries which prompted a synthesis of several disparate thoughts I've been having lately.

When reading the ideas below, they may seem to make a great deal of sense. But as with everything in science, they always seem a lot simpler after you figure them out. Explaining a theory to someone is easy once you've formulated it, but formulating it can take a long time.

It all comes down to some articles that I read last year on vitality and ego depletion (At the time I was looking specifically at delayed gratification and combatting procrastination). In other words, the idea that the energy required for self-regulation is limited and that self-regulatory activities consume greater or lesser amounts of this energy.

In a way, what I'm looking to do is kind of like the inverse of what I'm doing with food - in that case I'm trying to reduce energy (read: excess fat) in two ways: by decreasing intake (eating less) and by increasing expenditure (exercising more). Likewise, if I want to have more mental energy available for self-regulation, I can go about it in two different ways: by increasing intake (i.e. available resources; see the second paper cited above) and, more recently, by DECREASING EXPENDITURE.

When I read those articles a year ago, I was seeking ways to augment or increase the amount of mental energy available. But my reading today brought forth the idea which hadn't occurred to me before: namely, that of decreasing expenditure.

Effectively, I realized that I'm wasting a lot of mental energy unnecessarily every day. On what? Precisely the kinds of things mentioned in the articles above. For instance, Mental Storage of plans and lists takes a great deal of energy to maintain. Then there's also the storage of information for each person I know pertaining to Impression Management, which I engage in to a greater or lesser degree with practically everyone (except Sheila, Chibi, and Buru) due to my anxiety, and that itself consumes another substantial chunk (No wonder socializing tires me out!). As does Unproductive Worry - worrying about things that I can do nothing about at the present moment.

So in addition to my quest for ways to increase my available stores of mental energy (via things like adequate sleep and authenticity to core values), I am also starting to look at ways to decrease the wasteful expenditure of said energy. So not only can I add more RAM, I can also decrease the amount being used unnecessarily. ^^

As the blog above suggests, I can start by finding a good system to which I can outsource or at least delegate some of my memory responsibilities. I won't have to remember my June 10th dentist appointment, or my June 26th haircut, because I'll have them written down. I won't have to mentally go through two weeks worth of plans multiple times every day (volleyball games at lunch, Buru's work schedule, get-togethers with friends, deadlines for work, etc.) because I'll have them written down. Same goes for grocery lists, ideas for presents, possible blog entries, what to eat for dinner, etc.

This also gives me a rational explanation for why I intuitively feel that the resolution bracelet that Sheila is making me will work so well - because it's basically externalizing the personal development that I have undergone over the past several years. The kanji on the beads each represent an improvement I'm in the process of adopting, a new way of thinking, or a resolution that I've made to myself. As a result, I don't have to keep quite as much information in my head - I can glance down at my wrist to remind myself.

After all, when I'm studying multiple languages, learning about toxicology, listening to CBC Podcasts, writing computer programs at work, getting better at cooking and baking, learning how to script in Linux, becoming more knowledgeable about fashion, engaging in psychological self-analysis and personal improvement, and socializing with numerous friends...I'm already using up a great deal of mental resources. And those are things that can't really be outsourced.

So I think I really should try to delegate some of the less-critical tasks to a computer or notebook so that I can focus on the more critical ones. Between that and improving my mental energy stores, I should have plenty of energy to implement additional elements of self-regulation and become a more responsible and capable adult. XD

That said, if you have any suggestions to share regarding how you personally manage such aspects of your life, please reply or e-mail me with your comments. Perhaps a calendar application that can e-mail/text me reminders. The bracelet will help too. <3

Hi guys,

I'm just writing to give you a few interesting links I read today at lunch. The first does a decent job of debunking some of the whole "organic" fad. Working everyday in toxicology, I know full well that many of the most potent toxins and carcinogens are 100% organic and naturally produced by plants.

Heck, the whole group I work in deals with all the toxins that are NOT put there intentionally by food producers. They're often much harder to deal with because we can't just say "You're not allowed to use this food additive that you want to use." It's there already and it can be exceedingly difficult to remove some of it. In some cases, the most healthy solution is to use a fungicide to kill the fungus that produces the toxin! (ironic that the public is more worried about the pesticide, which was likely approved because its toxicity to us is minimal, than the more dangerous contamination from whatever it's meant to kill, which we're really concerned about!!)

Not to say that all pesticides are great either, but I certainly think people like to oversimplify things. They want an easy way to make a choice at the supermarket, as if everything with a particular logo on the package is 100% safe and healthy, and everything without it is going to kill you. But life's not that black-and-white. The marketers just want it to be so they can make money off people by misleading them to believe that their product is safer because they use different chemicals.

Anyway, have a look at this article, extolling the benefits of eating local over simply choosing things with the word 'organic' on the label. And keep in mind that local isn't a simple distinction either - local doesn't mean 100% perfect, but it does at least mean that you can talk to the person producing it and come to your own decisions!

http://www.livescience.com/health/…

In addition, the following article is a nice piece on biodiversity, and specifically the increasing loss of it when it comes to food. For those less familiar with the concept, the world has an enormous number of different species and types of every living thing. In terms of evolution, this variety is a very good thing! It's like having a diverse array of investments rather than having everything in a single stock.

Monoculture is a horrible idea, yet modern society tends to bend toward that. They want everything to be standardized (i.e. every tomato should conform to society's idea of 'the ideal tomato') and optimized (i.e. we want a single breed of tomato that's resistant to all known tomato diseases and that'll grown in all relevant climates). But that's a VERY DANGEROUS IDEA.

Because what happens when an unexpected or unknown disease comes along? What happens when the world's climate changes? You might suddenly go from having millions of acres of "perfect" tomato plants to having millions of acres of dead tomato plants.

And it's not just the danger of a loss of biodiversity that's a concern, it's also the fact that it's a sick way of looking at nature and at food. Perhaps it's "easier" to have everything look the same, but the world would be a lot less interesting if there were only five types of people, or only two types of tree! That may be the case in old videogames, but that's a limitation, present because the technology wasn't capable of having the kind of variety inherent in real life. It's not something people should go after, although they often do.

Anyway, read the following article, and think about it the next time you're walking past row-upon-row of absolutely identical chicken breasts or vegetables at the grocery store. Think about the fact that there are TENS OF THOUSANDS of species of edible plants in the world, and only 20 of them are consumed in a great quantity. Over 85% of all plants consumed in the Western world are of those 20 species!! Heck, I bet there are less than 200 even AVAILABLE at the largest of grocery stores.

You can easily paint a really bleak picture of the future with this - a future with only one type of meat from some genetically engineered animal that comes in identical skinless boneless cubes, and maybe 5 types of plant roughly corresponding to potatoes, corn, rice, soybeans, and apples. Scary!

Anyway, it's a neat article.

http://www.livescience.com/animals…

Thoughts are welcome.

I posted this on Facebook, but then realized that some people like Roo won't see it there, so I'm crossposting it here. =)

[If you'd like to make a meme out of this, or just want a chance to reflect in such a way yourself, feel free to fill in a similar list yourself.]

I'm sure some of you are familiar with professor Randy Pausch's Last Lecture. If you're not, I suggest you go read it, or if you're too lazy, watch it on Youtube.

The Last Lecture really got me thinking: if I were to die tomorrow, would I be satisfied with my life thus far? What would I have to do before I would feel at least somewhat satisfied? In other words, what's really important to me in life?

The idea is not new. Organizations like the Children's Wish Foundation exist for just this purpose - fulfilling wishes and dreams of children with life-threatening diseases. Variations on the idea have also been explored in literature and film, where a character's outlook on life is often profoundly changed by the realization of their (rather imminent) mortality. This is one thing with the power to override our evolutionary propensity to accumulate wealth, which I think is sadly quite often front-and-centre for younger people.

So I decided one day to sit down and write a list of 10 things I wanted to accomplish before I die. I quickly realized that 10 wasn't enough, so it grew to 20, then to 50. I then extended it to around 100, and got up to 93 before I was completely out of ideas.

Today, I took a few minutes to skim over that list and realized that a lot of the goals were redundant or unnecessary, so I managed to trim it down to just a few. I've listed these below. I'm sure I could come up with a few more, and I don't necessarily need to do all of these to be satisfied, but if I could complete most of them, and then found out I would die shortly, I would be relatively satisfied with my life.

(By the way, things which are more or less impossible are not included. I also excluded things that are extremely easy which I am already likely to do soon, i.e. prepare curry from scratch, read X book, etc.)

Things to do:
1) Explore subterranean caves
2) Forage for, prepare, and eat various edible wild plants and mushrooms
3) Learn about local history (Ottawa)
4) Track my genealogical history / family tree
5) Practice archery
6) Work on an organic farm
7) Contribute to educational reform
8) Obtain a bronze cross in swimming
9) Participate in a 10 km run
10) Travel on a tall ship
11) Volunteer for a political campaign
12) Have something I've written published
13) Participate in the development of a video game
14) Construct an old-school computer
15) Write letters to people expressing admiration and gratitude
16) Read a novel in Japanese
17) Play in a chess tournament
18) Learn to handwrite beautifully
19) Become an amateur astronomer and scientist
20) Study a martial art and/or Yoga

People to meet:
1) Jack-kun
2) Elizabeth May
3) Patrick Stewart
4) Corey and Lori Ann Cole
5) Rick Mercer

Places to visit:
1) Japan
2) The U.K.
3) New Zealand
4) Rome
5) The U.S.

What's most conspicuous, actually, is what's ABSENT:
- anything about money or material goods
- anything about career or job prestige
- anything about relationships or social status
etc.

Again, I'm certain I could think of more (particularly under 'people to meet') but for now I chose to limit each to a few key points. I'll likely revise this in the future, but I'm at the point where I can't think of a heck of a lot more to add. It's kind of a nice feeling, actually...especially when you realize that a lot of these are not that difficult.

Some companies just get it right.

Advertising has changed a lot over the past century. From simple lists of a product's features, Freud's nephew Bernays and those who followed took it to a psychological science of manipulation, tying innocuous products to peoples' anticipated emotional desires and tailoring advertisements to their reactions as determined by focus groups.

With the advent of movies came product placement, and celebrity endorsement. Then the Internet came along and as more and more people came to use it, for business and pleasure, advertising began to fill its pages like those of a magazine. Whole companies were founded on advertising alone, providing services that once cost money for free, with their income derived from advertising instead.

I've always found it a bit ridiculous how much money companies will pay for advertisements, however, because I've grown up in a generation of skeptics where a lot of the inner workings and intentions of the advertisers are apparent. When I read an article in Macleans, when I browse a website, and when I'm watching a show on TV, I don't even give the ads a second thought.

To me, they're just negative space around whatever it is that I'm looking at. They could just as well have a painting of a crumpled napkin, or a photo of a sleeping dog. Actually, I might look at the dog if it were cute, so that's a bad analogy. The only advertisements that even get a glance out of me are the really obtrusive ones, and I only look long enough to figure out how to close them and to make a mental note to boycott that company's product at all costs for they have offended me by interfering with whatever it is I was trying to read or watch.

Ignoring TV commercials is just as easy, now, as people can pre-record their TV shows, fast-forward with OnDemand TV, purchase DVD box sets instead so that they can watch at their convenience, or just download the files.

So why would the companies pay so much just to get the name of their product in your head? If it even sticks? Why do they go through so much trouble to make catchy jingles or memorable commercials more likely to inspire discussion of the medium than the product?

It hardly seems worth the effort. The only time when I would really buy one of their products would be when I'm in need of it - and I would likely consult my friends or colleagues about their experiences with the companies that provide them. Such word-of-mouth advertising is only in the company's control inasmuch as they can provide memorably good service to their customers. No amount of branding or shoving images in my face or trying to convince me that buying their cell phone will make me more sexually attractive will aid them in getting my business, because the information is extraneous.

If they want my business, they'd need to either:
1) Catch me when I'm looking to buy what they're selling
2) Show me something relevant to my interests which I might consider buying
3) Respect what I'm doing and avoid doing anything obtrusive or invasive

The only way that traditional advertising can accomplish (1) is through saturation - showing car commercials all the time ensures that if someone actually /is/ looking for a car, they'll catch them. However, most people aren't looking for a car more than once or twice a decade, so that seems a bit wasteful of resources.

Number (2) is only partially accomplished by correlating certain ads with certain kinds of publications or television shows...but then that assumes everyone who reads or watches a particular thing is the same. While a bit more effective than completely random targeting, it still hits a lot of people with ads that they ignore at best, or get annoyed with at worst.

Then with number (3), the more obtrusive things get, the more people resist them. TV commercials interrupt a program, so people leave to get a snack, or go to the bathroom, or change channels for two minutes. Newspaper and magazine ads get virtually ignored - whole page ads are just a prompt to turn the page faster, as people can easily deduce that there's nothing worth reading on that page.

FINALLY A SMART APPROACH EMERGES

Evidently, I'm not the only one who's noticed the above trends, and so some intelligent people have finally started putting the above ideas into practice.
Advertisements by Google and Facebook are nothing short of revolutionary. While some people worry that their privacy is being infringed upon (and I would certainly be creeped out if it went a few steps further and said 'How would you like to buy this beautiful sweater for Buru?' or something), these vechicles for advertisement respect the above 3 points so well that I am actually enjoying them - particularly on Facebook.

And I think the advertisers are enjoying them as well. Until recently, I had never clicked on an internet ad. I grew up with nothing but text-based internet, originally only at Virtual Ventures computer camp, and then at home as well. Once I got a 14.4k modem and started using the graphical internet, I dismissed the ubiquitous ads just as readily as those in a newspaper or magazine. In fact, I was even more cautious about clicking any for fear of viruses and the like.

But Google and Facebook have changed that. When I was planning the Spain trip with Bettina, the small adverts beside my e-mail were for travel companies and hostels. When I was looking for a cell phone, there were the phone companies and carriers telling me about their deals. Though I still consulted friends and workmates about their experiences, and read a number of customer review sites, it was still good timing. Number (1), check.

More recently, with the New Facebook, there are always two or three ads on the right-hand side of the page. It could just as well be empty space (like here in my journal), as paragraphs are easier to read when they aren't excessively wide, but instead they put ads. But were they regular ads, for cars or fast food or what have you, I would have been annoyed.

Instead, I conspicuously noticed that a huge proportion of these ads interest me. Some are from games I might want to play, some are for local stores I might want to visit, some are for services I might need in the near future...they were all useful. What's more, if anything that shows up is offensive or irrelevant, you have but to click the little Thumbs-Down icon and it disappears - forever. I wish I could do that with other advertisements. Imagine seeing an annoying commercial and pressing a button on the remote and it just goes away, never coming again. *lol*

I can also click a thumbs-up icon if I find an advertisement particularly useful (and an option to select why). I don't have to do this, I don't get anything for it, there's nothing saying I have to...but I do. Why? It's like Pandora, that internet radio station - I figure if I give some feedback, the system administering these advertisements will be less likely to shove crap in my face and more likely to show me something interesting and relevant.

It's actually enjoyable seeing interesting and relevant advertising. I still recognize that the company's intention is to sell me something, but it no longer feels one-sided. They're now trying to sell me something that might be of use to me, rather than trying to convince me to buy something that I don't desire to have. So it doesn't offend me, and it's actually useful. Number (2), check.

For example, if I pop on Facebook, I'm doing so to check my messages, to see what friends are up to, perhaps to plan a get-together, or maybe to catch up with a friend I haven't seen for a while...I'm not particularly busy with a task. What's more, if I really do need to just send a message, the little adverts are off to the side, not flying out and disrupting my writing (Imagine writing a letter to a friend and having the newspaper on your desk float over and constnatly try to get in the way of your pen - that's what some internet advertising is like). So they don't bother me; number (3), check.

On the contrary, if I do have a moment to spare, while looking at things my friends have posted or reading their current status; my eyes also drift over to the advertisements. Seeing an ad for an online game on the right-hand side of the page is then perceived as no different from seeing a friend who's playing that game on the left. I might click either one to see what it is, especially if I'd never heard of it before.

However it's programmed, it's quite a smart system. I'm guessing that it checks for keywords in my profile, and compares my interests and those of my friends, to determine what I'm interested in. It must check on my status too - I often set my status on Fridays to "TGIF" or "I can't wait for the weekend" and I think it noticed this as I've gotten some ads recently about training services and other job opportunities. *lol* I actually clicked some of them to check them out!

Case in point, I recently brought some alcohol to Sha and Buru's place for a get-together they were having. Sha's pretty adept at mixing drinks, and I wanted to try some new things. One of the products I brought was Crown Royal, purchased because I remember my Grandfather liking it (word-of-mouth still triumphs). I must have noted this somewhere, because I then saw an ad on Facebook a few days later about Crown Royal. However, this ad had a small typo in the blurb.

I had just been pleased with their product, though, and their advertisement had done nothing to bother me. In fact, seeing it there had reminded me of the get-together we had back in October at Sha and Buru's, so I was in a pretty favourable mood toward them - so I actually took the time to click the link, locate their Contact Us section, and told them about the typo (after telling them that I had recently bought their product as a hostess gift and had enjoyed it).

Another example - I saw another ad recently for the Cube Gallery in Ottawa. I was a bit surprised at first; it was an ad for small paintings to give as gifts at Christmas. Well normally I would have dismissed the ad, but I noticed it was in Ottawa. I don't think I've ever seen an advert for artwork before, and I do want to get some Christmas presents, so it was an opportune time to suggest one that I hadn't though of on my own.

When I clicked it, it took me to a Facebook Group about the gallery's Christmas exhibition. Turns out it's located not far from my work (no doubt also something Facebook's advertising system could tell). I followed a link again to the gallery's own site, which looked interesting, so I resolved to go there with my friends sometime in December to look for some Christmas presents, especially for those who have recently moved out and could use some housewarming as well. XD

So happy was I with the experience of finding these relevant and interesting ads that I wrote the curator of the gallery too, telling him that I would love to visit the gallery with my friends and thanking him for advertising with Facebook or I wouldn't have known of its existence.

WHERE'S THE LESSON IN ALL THIS?

Well the take-home message here is that advertising is not always annoying and obtrusive and irrelevant. Traditional ads are easily seen through, but their attempt at deception, coercion, and manipulation is not at all appreciated, and it makes for a very antagonistic mindset. (à la "Oh. My. God. If they show that automatic car starter ad one more time I'm going to give up driving and start taking the bus" - there's an idea for environmental group advertising! *rofl*)

On the other hand, if a company goes to the trouble to target their ads specifically, in time and space, so that they are interesting and relevant, I am happy to participate in the exchange. It's actually enjoyable, which I found very surprising. It makes me happy to give some feedback and to check out the sites and products. Not to mention, sometimes it makes me want to reward the company just for being so "with it."

So while Axe deodorant just gets me annoyed with their ridiculous sexual commercials (You're implying that I need to chemically coerce potential partners with pheromones? Have you no morals, let alone tact?), a simple facebook ad for new Speed Stick or Right Guard formulation that's healthier for my skin and the potential allergies of those around me (with a link to scientifically adequate support on the main website should I decide to look into it) would actually have me consider switching brands. Especially if it's in reaction to my stating that I need to go to the drugstore this weekend to get some toothpaste. *lol*

See what I mean? Some companies, at least, are getting smart. And I don't mind them perusing a bit of my writings and profile information to do so. Heck, I'll even fill out surveys for them if they make the effort to establish a positive rapport with me.

WHAT'S NEXT?

You know what'd be nice? Better customer service. Take some of that now-freed-up advertising money and get rid of the frustrating automated machines that are used to process telephone calls.

I tried to call the Ministry of Transportation the other day to ask about Driver's Licenses and for the life of me I couldn't get a live person on the line to answer a question. Everything pointed to their stupid toll-free number which was just a series of machines (not even a "press 0 at any time to speak to a customer service agent") with pre-recorded messages that naturally did not answer my specific question.

I got so angry at them - it would have only taken 2 minutes to give me an answer to my question, but instead I took half an hour of my time to go into stalker mode, procured the actual number to their offices (which required an extention to get through to anyone), called various driving schools to find out extensions to particular employees there, phoned a number of them, complained about the machine, got transfered around a bit, and finally ended up getting my question answered by a real person.

Cripes! Is it really that difficult to have a couple people available to answer the phone? And for the companies that do - for god's sake, treat them better! All retail and service employees deserve better pay than they do. It takes a great deal of positive energy, effort, and restraint to be pleasant and cordial to grumpy people all day long. That should be rewarded.

One thing that's come up a few times with the Canadian and American elections has been the confusion by the electorate between correlation and causation. In fact, the politicians themselves make such misattributions frequently.

I often read comments on the Globe and Mail forums, for example, from people who blame a particular party for a problem that occurred while they were in office. I've seen such blaming on all sides of the political spectrum. Stephen Harper called this election, no doubt, because he figured waiting until the economic problems really started would cause people to blame his government for them (rather than over a decade of extreme greed by many financial institutions in the United States).

Many of you are more intelligent than this, surely, but just to remind everyone of the important distinction between correlation and causation, I'm sharing with you a few links.

The first is a blog post by Michael Bywater. He is the author of a book I've read recently, and a friend of Douglas Adams. He actually used to work on Interactive Fiction as well, which I'm starting to see everywhere now that I've begun to get interested in it.

http://hermeneutics.typepad.com/lo…

The second has more to do with my job. It is one of my favourite scientific journal articles, written in 1965 by Sir Austin Bradford Hill. I came across it last year through my work and it has provided me with a great deal of insight.

Many people will recognize the name from the "Bradford-Hill Criteria" for causality, which have been criticized in recent years, but the criticism actually stems from people not reading what he wrote. Because he used a numbered list, people seem to have taken just the list items and ignored the caveats and warnings he presented.

This goes along the idea, presented by Mr. Bywater, that the average person is no longer comfortable with ambiguity or shades-of-grey and can only see things in black-and-white. In fact, as you'll note when you read it, Hill goes to great effort to explain that these cannot simply be used as strict criteria, but are presented instead as a guideline to make sure you consider all the points. After all, the reason this must be done by scientists and not computers is precisely because of the ambiguity present in real life.

Modern science has become too focused on minute little details and numbers punched through computers, and as a result, many younger scientists have lost the ability to apply reason and intuition; instead they just pump numbers through black-box programs or apply statistical tests without verifying the assumptions required for the tests to be meaningful.

Anyway, have a read. It's written in an old style, but it's quite fascinating to read.

http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/h…

I'll leave you with an amusing quote from the blog of Dr. Stuart Fischoff, attributed to a Republican friend of his watching John McCain talk during the most recent of the American political debates:

"For God's sake, John, how can I vote for you when I feel smarter than you! I'm not supposed to feel smarter than you. You're supposed to feel smarter than me! Obama feels smarter than me most of the time, why can't you?"

Indeed, I wish politicians, and the electorate they pander to, would be a bit more intelligent at times. No wonder our voter turnouts are so low.

[Edit: Jonathan just posted this link on facebook. It's quite funny if you get it. XD
http://xkcd.com/552/
]

I know this is short notice for many of you, but for anyone who would like to watch, Rogers is showing repeats of the local (riding) candidate debates throughout the day today. Check the following website for the time when your candidates are going to be on the air:

http://www.rogerstv.com/option.asp…

Election day will be Tuesday. Don't forget to vote! <3

The following are my impressions on last night's (Oct. 1st) Leaders Debate. This first debate was in French. The English one will be held tonight (Oct. 2nd) at 9:00pm.

( Collapse )

I certainly did not go into this debate expecting my voting intention to change, though change it did. I look forward to the English debate tonight, and can only hope it is as civil and intelligent as last night's French debate. If Mr. Dion can pull off a good performance again tonight, then this year I will be confident enough to cast my vote at the Advance Poll this weekend.

To those of you who are joining us tonight, I'll see you then!

-- Ian

P.S. If you'd like to watch the French debate yourself and form your own judgements, feel free to do so. It's always better to watch in its entirety rather than just watching the snippets the media chooses to show, as what you choose can totally change the impression you get, giving the media too much control over it.

I've decided to pick up my LiveJournal again. This time, I intend it to be more of an actual blog than a means to keep in touch with friends; I will be using it to share ideas and express opinions, and I welcome discussion thereof. So without further ado, let's get started!