There is an idea bubbling inside me and I have no idea how to get it out. It's caught somewhere between my mind and my throat. The language in my head has nothing to do with the language that I speak. Any sort of thing I say is a horrible mockery of trying to translate between the two. An actual Chinese box would not be able to communicate very well in Chinese, each sentence stilted and broken andonly understandable in "this was once an English phrase."
My only way of getting raw idea into physical form is with words. My creativity is all bundled up in prose. Yet so many of the ideas would be better expressed with art, or poetry, or music, or anything that breaks the limitations of subject-predicate. I really need to learn a new creative skill.
Or maybe the solution is to make prose capable of matching the mind?
2012-05-15
2012-05-11
2012-05-10
Social Butterfly
When I was in high school I was a complete loner. My best friend was an internet buddy. The majority of my friends were internet buddies. I had some school friends, but I can count the number of times we hung out outside of school on both fingers. It was a combination of logistical issues, cultural barriers, and... well, the fact i saw myself as a complete introvert.
All of my college friends call me a social butterfly and assume I know everybody.
How the hell did this happen?
All of my college friends call me a social butterfly and assume I know everybody.
How the hell did this happen?
2012-05-09
Over a year
Holy cow, it's been over a year now, hasn't it? We posted updates before last Scav. That I know. How much has happened since then?
We really haven't done all that much with this blog. G has posted a few large bits. I have posted many small ones. There is no recurrence of ideas and no overall theme. It's a personal thoughts blog. For all of the thoughts that aren't supposed to go in Improving Myself to Death. And whatever G decides is worth writing. IMtD takes up most of my time, and G doesn't post anymore (last post notwithstanding). Should we even bother with this blog?
I think so, at least. I mentioned on the Other Blog that I feel an obligation to be innovative. Here I feel an obligation to be clever. Or insightful, or meaningful. All the same, really. I want all of my posts to really mean something. It's pretty taxing and part of why I don't update very often.
But I've been updating more and more due to the new resolution, and the quality of my posts has gone down. And you know what? Let it. I shouldn't feel constrained to always be funny or be insightful. I'm going to write stupid things and nobody's gonna stop me.
Mostly because nobody cares enough to stop me, but still.
We really haven't done all that much with this blog. G has posted a few large bits. I have posted many small ones. There is no recurrence of ideas and no overall theme. It's a personal thoughts blog. For all of the thoughts that aren't supposed to go in Improving Myself to Death. And whatever G decides is worth writing. IMtD takes up most of my time, and G doesn't post anymore (last post notwithstanding). Should we even bother with this blog?
I think so, at least. I mentioned on the Other Blog that I feel an obligation to be innovative. Here I feel an obligation to be clever. Or insightful, or meaningful. All the same, really. I want all of my posts to really mean something. It's pretty taxing and part of why I don't update very often.
But I've been updating more and more due to the new resolution, and the quality of my posts has gone down. And you know what? Let it. I shouldn't feel constrained to always be funny or be insightful. I'm going to write stupid things and nobody's gonna stop me.
Mostly because nobody cares enough to stop me, but still.
2012-05-07
The Envelope Behavior
There's a neat little theorem in economic theory, called the envelope theorem. It is a mathematical result that describes the behavior of solutions to optimization problems. I will give an intuitive description of what it's about.
Optimization basically means finding a solution that best satisfies some set of conditions. Some conditions are inviolable, meaning that a solution must satisfy these conditions. These are called constraints. Other conditions characterize how good a particular solution is, these are called objectives. The classical example in economics is the problem of allocating income to purchase consumption goods. In this case, the optimization problem concerns finding the set of goods to purchase that makes a consumer the happiest. Whatever measurement for happiness is the objective that we are trying to maximize, and the income of the consumer gives a constraint in the sense that we cannot buy more goods than we can afford.
The envelope theorem characterizes how the optimal solution changes if we change the conditions imposed on the optimization problem. That is to say, the theorem describes how a consumer's optimal consumption choices may change if we altered how much he prefers different goods or if we change his income.
Take for example a price change in a good x. We hope to understand how a consumer's best choice of consumption changes given this change in price. There are two effects at work: the direct effect of the change in price on happiness. (Perhaps after a price reduction, a consumer feels the happiness he gains from an extra unit of x now outweighs the price of x, causing more consumption of good x). There is also an indirect effect, which affects other parameters of the optimization problem, which themselves affect consumer choice. For example, when the price of x decreases, one can afford more of x, so the consumer's income has effectively increased in that he is now less constrained in what sets of goods he can purchase. Income itself has an effect on consumption choice, so here, the changing price of x acts indirectly on happiness through income as a mediator.[2]
The envelope theorem tells us that as long as we are looking at the optimal solution, the changes of the solution based on changes in any parameter of the problem depends only on the direct effect of the parameter in question. The indirect effect is accounted for by the optimization process. This is to say, if we look at a consumer's optimal choice after the price change in x, the consumer accounts for how indirect effects of say price on income affect his choices, so that his observed optimal choice after the price change is attributable to only the direct effect that prices have on his happiness.
This theorem seems to hint at a certain dynamism in the process of optimization. The optimized behavior is able to in a sense "smooth out" the indirect effects from changing parameters. This smoothing effect that eliminates indirect effects is, to be sure, not present when we are not talking about optimal choices. Indeed, when we are not talking about optimal choice, the indirect effects from changing a parameter is usually nonzero, so it is curious that the procedure of optimization is somehow synonymous with acting in a way that counteracts the indirect effects from changing parameters, something that we did not really set out to control.
There is a practical side to this story. If we adopt the economics point of view of human behavior, then any equilibrium in society (which is code for everyday behavior on "good days") can be interpreted as being at a local optimal point on the scale of social welfare. We can view public policy as changing the parameters of the societal optimization problem, to which people must respond optimally to arrive at a new equilibrium, which, when public policy goes right, is at a point of greater social welfare than before.
There is always a concern of perverse incentives in policymaking, which basically means when a policy encourages people to do exactly opposite of what was intended. For example, in 1990, Mexico City passed a law that attempted to reduce air pollution and congestion in the city by limiting when cars can be used. They limited travel based on the last digit of cars' license plates, so during half of the week, the odd numbered cars can go on the road, and during the other half, the even numbered cars are allowed. This policy was so inconvenient that it caused some people to buy two cheaper, more polluting cars so that they could travel every day, which ironically exacerbated the congestion and pollution problems. (Eskeland & Feyzioglu, 1995)
The problem of perverse incentives reminds me of what the envelope theorem tells us. While as policymakers, we would like to just implement a law that we hope people will obey in a straightforward way, the problem is that new laws in effect only change the constraints as to what people can do, and after people have optimized their choices given these new constraints, their optimal solution may be very far from the direction that the policymakers had intended the people to go. This is like how through optimization, the process itself is dynamic enough to adjust to indirect effects and produce a surprising result that we have not done anything to achieve.
The general human ability to optimize in unexpected ways, is the bane of well-intentioned policymakers everywhere. Much like how the envelope theorem predicts there are side-effects to the mathematical optimization problem, we should always keep in mind the potential for human behavior to produce side-effects that policymakers simply cannot foresee.
-----
1. H should be a professional motivator. He has mastered a good combination of peer pressure and physical intimidation to force people to write blog posts. So here I am, writing again after almost a year's hiatus. It's not that I have forgotten about the blog. More that I haven't figured how to put a lot of my ideas into words. But this exercise basically forces me to write, so we will see how this goes! Anyway, H, I know you're reading this. Do consider a career in professional motivation.
2. Mathematically, the effects from changing parameters are represented by partial derivatives. Say an objective L depends on parameters p (price) and M (income). Here, the income also depends on price, so we have M(p). Then The total effect of price on the objective ∂L/∂p has two components: the direct component dL/dp and the indirect component from chain rule: (∂L/∂M)*(dM/dp). The envelope theorem states that when we evaluate these partials at the optimal choice, the indirect effect always equals zero.
Optimization basically means finding a solution that best satisfies some set of conditions. Some conditions are inviolable, meaning that a solution must satisfy these conditions. These are called constraints. Other conditions characterize how good a particular solution is, these are called objectives. The classical example in economics is the problem of allocating income to purchase consumption goods. In this case, the optimization problem concerns finding the set of goods to purchase that makes a consumer the happiest. Whatever measurement for happiness is the objective that we are trying to maximize, and the income of the consumer gives a constraint in the sense that we cannot buy more goods than we can afford.
The envelope theorem characterizes how the optimal solution changes if we change the conditions imposed on the optimization problem. That is to say, the theorem describes how a consumer's optimal consumption choices may change if we altered how much he prefers different goods or if we change his income.
Take for example a price change in a good x. We hope to understand how a consumer's best choice of consumption changes given this change in price. There are two effects at work: the direct effect of the change in price on happiness. (Perhaps after a price reduction, a consumer feels the happiness he gains from an extra unit of x now outweighs the price of x, causing more consumption of good x). There is also an indirect effect, which affects other parameters of the optimization problem, which themselves affect consumer choice. For example, when the price of x decreases, one can afford more of x, so the consumer's income has effectively increased in that he is now less constrained in what sets of goods he can purchase. Income itself has an effect on consumption choice, so here, the changing price of x acts indirectly on happiness through income as a mediator.[2]
The envelope theorem tells us that as long as we are looking at the optimal solution, the changes of the solution based on changes in any parameter of the problem depends only on the direct effect of the parameter in question. The indirect effect is accounted for by the optimization process. This is to say, if we look at a consumer's optimal choice after the price change in x, the consumer accounts for how indirect effects of say price on income affect his choices, so that his observed optimal choice after the price change is attributable to only the direct effect that prices have on his happiness.
This theorem seems to hint at a certain dynamism in the process of optimization. The optimized behavior is able to in a sense "smooth out" the indirect effects from changing parameters. This smoothing effect that eliminates indirect effects is, to be sure, not present when we are not talking about optimal choices. Indeed, when we are not talking about optimal choice, the indirect effects from changing a parameter is usually nonzero, so it is curious that the procedure of optimization is somehow synonymous with acting in a way that counteracts the indirect effects from changing parameters, something that we did not really set out to control.
There is a practical side to this story. If we adopt the economics point of view of human behavior, then any equilibrium in society (which is code for everyday behavior on "good days") can be interpreted as being at a local optimal point on the scale of social welfare. We can view public policy as changing the parameters of the societal optimization problem, to which people must respond optimally to arrive at a new equilibrium, which, when public policy goes right, is at a point of greater social welfare than before.
There is always a concern of perverse incentives in policymaking, which basically means when a policy encourages people to do exactly opposite of what was intended. For example, in 1990, Mexico City passed a law that attempted to reduce air pollution and congestion in the city by limiting when cars can be used. They limited travel based on the last digit of cars' license plates, so during half of the week, the odd numbered cars can go on the road, and during the other half, the even numbered cars are allowed. This policy was so inconvenient that it caused some people to buy two cheaper, more polluting cars so that they could travel every day, which ironically exacerbated the congestion and pollution problems. (Eskeland & Feyzioglu, 1995)
The problem of perverse incentives reminds me of what the envelope theorem tells us. While as policymakers, we would like to just implement a law that we hope people will obey in a straightforward way, the problem is that new laws in effect only change the constraints as to what people can do, and after people have optimized their choices given these new constraints, their optimal solution may be very far from the direction that the policymakers had intended the people to go. This is like how through optimization, the process itself is dynamic enough to adjust to indirect effects and produce a surprising result that we have not done anything to achieve.
The general human ability to optimize in unexpected ways, is the bane of well-intentioned policymakers everywhere. Much like how the envelope theorem predicts there are side-effects to the mathematical optimization problem, we should always keep in mind the potential for human behavior to produce side-effects that policymakers simply cannot foresee.
-----
1. H should be a professional motivator. He has mastered a good combination of peer pressure and physical intimidation to force people to write blog posts. So here I am, writing again after almost a year's hiatus. It's not that I have forgotten about the blog. More that I haven't figured how to put a lot of my ideas into words. But this exercise basically forces me to write, so we will see how this goes! Anyway, H, I know you're reading this. Do consider a career in professional motivation.
2. Mathematically, the effects from changing parameters are represented by partial derivatives. Say an objective L depends on parameters p (price) and M (income). Here, the income also depends on price, so we have M(p). Then The total effect of price on the objective ∂L/∂p has two components: the direct component dL/dp and the indirect component from chain rule: (∂L/∂M)*(dM/dp). The envelope theorem states that when we evaluate these partials at the optimal choice, the indirect effect always equals zero.
2012-05-05
Updating late at night
Means I am unmotivated to write good updates. Therefore I will try for teh next three days to update before 6 PM.
2012-05-04
G's Drafts
I've been updating this or the Other Blog once every day in a personal groove thing. Tonight I couldn't think of anything to write because instead of thinking of things to write I bummed around with my friends. While bashing my head and trying to decide whether or not I should phone it in or not, I had a realization. G's last update over 15 (!) posts ago. You know how this is supposed to be a collaborative blog? I do now.
I know G hasn't forgotten about this since I see his drafts embedded between my posts. To shame him into actually finishing them, I will list them all right here.
I know G hasn't forgotten about this since I see his drafts embedded between my posts. To shame him into actually finishing them, I will list them all right here.
The Envelope Behavior
Is Dishwashing an Example of Coasian Bargaining?
Momenergy: A Homeopathic Interpretation
Scav, an introduction
Does Our Name Define Us?
We are Our Names
Monopole Song
Personal and Professional Life
Collective Psyche
Debunking the 1=2 Proof
Smartphones
If G does not write at least one of these by Sunday I will do them all for him.
And I will ensure they are all terrible.
And I will ensure they are all terrible.
2012-05-02
Contacts
In about a month many of my friends will be graduating. It's a bittersweet thing. On one hand, they now get to enter real life. On the other hand, they now have to face real life. Of course, I don't give a damn about their trials and tribulations. Doing that would make me a Real Person, and as a UChicagoan I traded all of my empathy for the ability to rant about comedy theory for 24 hours straight. Their graduation affects me in the regard that I'll never talk to them again.
It's a simple problem. People only talk if they're in contact. Tautological. But contact is hard to maintain. People use facebook, but it's hard to make that meaningful. Calling and email is better, but nobody uses that. I should, because it forges powerful connections, but GUESS WHAT: unless I have a responsibility to email, I won't email!
Oh wait.
What if I made it a responsibility to email? Not that emailing becomes a chore, but that I have to do something I want to. Not tricking myself, but building additional structure into my life to make something I want to be important more important. So I'm going to slowly over time build an emailing list, where I must email certain people on certain days. I can email other days, but I must email those days too. Going to start tomorrow with a couple of names, then add from there.
It's a simple problem. People only talk if they're in contact. Tautological. But contact is hard to maintain. People use facebook, but it's hard to make that meaningful. Calling and email is better, but nobody uses that. I should, because it forges powerful connections, but GUESS WHAT: unless I have a responsibility to email, I won't email!
Oh wait.
What if I made it a responsibility to email? Not that emailing becomes a chore, but that I have to do something I want to. Not tricking myself, but building additional structure into my life to make something I want to be important more important. So I'm going to slowly over time build an emailing list, where I must email certain people on certain days. I can email other days, but I must email those days too. Going to start tomorrow with a couple of names, then add from there.
2012-04-29
Backwards Ideas
Most people get ideas first as ideas, and then they refine them, and then they title them. Last week I noticed something odd. I first come up with titles, and then try to fit ideas to them. I'm wondering if this leads to different types of ideas, or at least different modes of realizing them.
2012-04-05
Giving Stuff
Normally I try to keep the snarking out of this blog because it's tricky to make it sound funny, and because it's too easy to mistake amused hatred for poisonous hatred. But I want to talk about something similar, so I guess I'll push the rant through, too.
We've got this thing called Dream, Believe, Smile, a club that tries to make campus a happier place. They do this by putting inspirational posters up everywhere.
I hate them so much.
Slacktivists, the lot of them. Seeing a poster doesn't make me think "I'm happy!" It makes me think "They're too lazy to actually bother." Making a person feel better involves making a small connection, like a conversation, a compliment, even a smile. The important thing is that you have to show you care. A DBS poster does not do that. It's too sterile.
Now I'd think that with this logic I'd be okay with Free Hugs Day. But for some reason I hate that too. I Think it's because offering free hugs to passerbies looks less like "I want to brighten your day by hugging you" and more like "I want to validate myself by hugging you." Hugging literally takes like two seconds of your time and doesn't show a connection if there's nothing else setting it up. It's just a cheap way of getting other people to hug you.
But I still like the idea behind DBS: we have the ability to make other people happier and we should put that power to good use. I just think that DBS and FHD are terrible ways to do that. Instead, I like to give out free food.
This has a couple of advantages over the hug method. First of all, I make my own candy. There's the whole "Have some of my time and energy" deal. And it's pretty novel to have homemade candy. Second, it's a lot more unusual to get free candy than to get a free hug, which makes it stick more. Finally, food is delicious.
Of course these can't be the main reasons, because I've had equal success giving away storebought candy and fruit and stresses balls. It's something intrinsic to giving, and even more specifically to giving stuff. Unlike hugging, giving stuff is a zero sum game. Not only do you gain, I lose. I think this is why giving is so powerful. I want to make your day better so much that I'm willing to sacrifice a tiny part of myself in the process. Sure, I can make like 400 candies in less than an hour, but the sentiment is still there. By consciously losing out in the exchange, I've imbued the giving with a lot more meaning.
Anyway, that's how I resolve the cognitive dissonance between my all-consuming hatred for DBS and FHD and my fondness for giving stuff away. We have roughly the same idea, just different implementations. And I think my implementation goes way further.
We've got this thing called Dream, Believe, Smile, a club that tries to make campus a happier place. They do this by putting inspirational posters up everywhere.
I hate them so much.
Slacktivists, the lot of them. Seeing a poster doesn't make me think "I'm happy!" It makes me think "They're too lazy to actually bother." Making a person feel better involves making a small connection, like a conversation, a compliment, even a smile. The important thing is that you have to show you care. A DBS poster does not do that. It's too sterile.
Now I'd think that with this logic I'd be okay with Free Hugs Day. But for some reason I hate that too. I Think it's because offering free hugs to passerbies looks less like "I want to brighten your day by hugging you" and more like "I want to validate myself by hugging you." Hugging literally takes like two seconds of your time and doesn't show a connection if there's nothing else setting it up. It's just a cheap way of getting other people to hug you.
But I still like the idea behind DBS: we have the ability to make other people happier and we should put that power to good use. I just think that DBS and FHD are terrible ways to do that. Instead, I like to give out free food.
This has a couple of advantages over the hug method. First of all, I make my own candy. There's the whole "Have some of my time and energy" deal. And it's pretty novel to have homemade candy. Second, it's a lot more unusual to get free candy than to get a free hug, which makes it stick more. Finally, food is delicious.
Of course these can't be the main reasons, because I've had equal success giving away storebought candy and fruit and stresses balls. It's something intrinsic to giving, and even more specifically to giving stuff. Unlike hugging, giving stuff is a zero sum game. Not only do you gain, I lose. I think this is why giving is so powerful. I want to make your day better so much that I'm willing to sacrifice a tiny part of myself in the process. Sure, I can make like 400 candies in less than an hour, but the sentiment is still there. By consciously losing out in the exchange, I've imbued the giving with a lot more meaning.
Anyway, that's how I resolve the cognitive dissonance between my all-consuming hatred for DBS and FHD and my fondness for giving stuff away. We have roughly the same idea, just different implementations. And I think my implementation goes way further.
2012-03-05
Word Puzzles
I love word games. Not all of them, though; things like scrabble and bananagrams never held much appeal to me. Mostly I like the ones that focus on properties of words. Word puzzles are even better. I find it incredibly fun to search for words with a given property, whether etymological, definitional, or even just structurally. Plus you can play them in your head anytime, anywhere. Here are some of my favorites. My best answers are linked.
Shortest word with all five vowels: http://tinyurl.com/7s5cpnu
Longest word without any vowels: http://tinyurl.com/88vadcg
Longest word with only one vowel: http://tinyurl.com/6upsokt
Longest word with only one type of vowel: http://tinyurl.com/6wfbmb (yeah, I'm kinda fixated on vowels)
Longest word with alternating vowels and consonants: http://tinyurl.com/894pped (if we can count y as a vowel)
Longest word with only one consonant: http://tinyurl.com/6pafg2o
I need to find some new ones. Any ideas?
Shortest word with all five vowels: http://tinyurl.com/7s5cpnu
Longest word without any vowels: http://tinyurl.com/88vadcg
Longest word with only one vowel: http://tinyurl.com/6upsokt
Longest word with only one type of vowel: http://tinyurl.com/6wfbmb (yeah, I'm kinda fixated on vowels)
Longest word with alternating vowels and consonants: http://tinyurl.com/894pped (if we can count y as a vowel)
Longest word with only one consonant: http://tinyurl.com/6pafg2o
I need to find some new ones. Any ideas?
2012-02-27
Soulstrip Poker
Last summer a friend and I were doing research in Chile. There were a bunch of other interns and none of us knew each other very well. To facilitate socialization we invented a game called 'Soulstrip Poker'. It's a lot like regular poker, except instead of gambling with money you gamble with secrets. 'Truth or dare' for manly men.
The first game went pretty well, with people asking small superficial questions ('What's your favorite type of music?'). The second game was much nastier, with people drilling into each other's insecurities and character flaws. After the third game we unanimously agreed to never play it again and then called an ambulance. I don't know why I'm putting the rules online. But I am. This is the third and final draft. 'Enjoy.'
---
YOU NEED
1 Deck of Cards
Coins: chips, in values of 1, 3, 5
Paper
SETUP
Everybody takes a piece of paper and writes everyone's names. This is their mat. Agree on how many points everybody starts with. Distribute that many points evenly among all of the names. Make a final piece of paper and put it in the center.
RULES
Play like normal poker. Choose poker rules.
All chips are 'tagged' with the person who owns them. When put into the pot, take them from one section of the paper and put them on the appropriate names. If you win the pot, put each set of chips over the appropriate name.
Example: A, B, and C are playing. A raises with two points. He puts one B chip and one A chip onto the appropriate places. B folds and C calls with two C chips. C wins, moving the C chips onto the C section (eww), the B chip onto the B section, etc.
After rounds everybody has a chance to ask one question. They take the appropriate chips from another person's section and give it back to them. Then they ask the appropriate person a question. The question must be answered truthfully. What kind of question you can ask depends on how many you spend.
1 point: a question that can be answered in yes/no
2 points: a question that can be answered in one word
4 points: a question that can be answered in a sentence
8 points: no limit
If the player has a number of your point equal to the number you spent on him, he can "pass" by giving them to you. You lose your question but do not lose the coins. Nobody else may ask him that question, or any question designed to draw similar info for the rest of the game. You may bump a question to a higher category to make it harder to pass, but may not go beyond 8 points.
Players may trade points with each other at any point. Players may ask questions about other people, but the target may pass for free.
A player may "bow out". Everybody gets an opportunity to ask as many questions as they can with their coins. After that they are out of the game. A player may also force quit, but then they're a wuss.
Play ends when everybody mutually agrees, everybody bows out or quits, or a fight breaks out.
The first game went pretty well, with people asking small superficial questions ('What's your favorite type of music?'). The second game was much nastier, with people drilling into each other's insecurities and character flaws. After the third game we unanimously agreed to never play it again and then called an ambulance. I don't know why I'm putting the rules online. But I am. This is the third and final draft. 'Enjoy.'
---
YOU NEED
1 Deck of Cards
Coins: chips, in values of 1, 3, 5
Paper
SETUP
Everybody takes a piece of paper and writes everyone's names. This is their mat. Agree on how many points everybody starts with. Distribute that many points evenly among all of the names. Make a final piece of paper and put it in the center.
RULES
Play like normal poker. Choose poker rules.
All chips are 'tagged' with the person who owns them. When put into the pot, take them from one section of the paper and put them on the appropriate names. If you win the pot, put each set of chips over the appropriate name.
Example: A, B, and C are playing. A raises with two points. He puts one B chip and one A chip onto the appropriate places. B folds and C calls with two C chips. C wins, moving the C chips onto the C section (eww), the B chip onto the B section, etc.
After rounds everybody has a chance to ask one question. They take the appropriate chips from another person's section and give it back to them. Then they ask the appropriate person a question. The question must be answered truthfully. What kind of question you can ask depends on how many you spend.
1 point: a question that can be answered in yes/no
2 points: a question that can be answered in one word
4 points: a question that can be answered in a sentence
8 points: no limit
If the player has a number of your point equal to the number you spent on him, he can "pass" by giving them to you. You lose your question but do not lose the coins. Nobody else may ask him that question, or any question designed to draw similar info for the rest of the game. You may bump a question to a higher category to make it harder to pass, but may not go beyond 8 points.
Players may trade points with each other at any point. Players may ask questions about other people, but the target may pass for free.
A player may "bow out". Everybody gets an opportunity to ask as many questions as they can with their coins. After that they are out of the game. A player may also force quit, but then they're a wuss.
Play ends when everybody mutually agrees, everybody bows out or quits, or a fight breaks out.
2012-02-26
Crowd Running
I'm an aggressive walker.
It's kinda like being an aggressive driver. If something is in my way, I try to get around it without slowing down. I can't call it parkour or anything, because it's less about gymnastics and more contortions. If somebody walks into my way, I twist around them. If a crowd of people are milling about, I move through the tiny spaces between them. I win if I don't touch anybody or anything before I finish. The challenge comes from the fact I have to slow down as little as possible. That's what makes it harder than it sounds.
The more I do it, the more automatic it becomes. It's reached the point where I no longer even think about slowing down or walking around people. My body habitually warps around the obstacles. Kinda cool in most situations, but definitely not when the crowd running would be embarrassing or dangerous. My new challenge is to not crowd run. I think it's gonna be a lot harder.
It's kinda like being an aggressive driver. If something is in my way, I try to get around it without slowing down. I can't call it parkour or anything, because it's less about gymnastics and more contortions. If somebody walks into my way, I twist around them. If a crowd of people are milling about, I move through the tiny spaces between them. I win if I don't touch anybody or anything before I finish. The challenge comes from the fact I have to slow down as little as possible. That's what makes it harder than it sounds.
The more I do it, the more automatic it becomes. It's reached the point where I no longer even think about slowing down or walking around people. My body habitually warps around the obstacles. Kinda cool in most situations, but definitely not when the crowd running would be embarrassing or dangerous. My new challenge is to not crowd run. I think it's gonna be a lot harder.
2012-02-23
Exploration
There are secrete places all over the university. Most aren't so much hidden as unnoticed For example, you can get from Gordon to Cummings without going outside. There's a tiny garden outside the Reg that only Max P's seem to know about. Five blocks from the edge of campus is the oldest sculpture in the city. The list goes on.
I've always been fascinated by this stuff. It's like we live in an art gallery. My first year I tried to find all of these places. There are a few common ones I haven't been in yet- like the Harper basement- and I've only recently been in the OI library. Still, I like to think I know more about these places than the average student. Fun fact: Our IDs get us into Rosenwald and Stuart. At night, the emptiness lends a surreal atmosphere. Sometimes I go in to run around and write papers.
Rockefeller has tours of the bell tower every Sunday. I really should go.
I've always been fascinated by this stuff. It's like we live in an art gallery. My first year I tried to find all of these places. There are a few common ones I haven't been in yet- like the Harper basement- and I've only recently been in the OI library. Still, I like to think I know more about these places than the average student. Fun fact: Our IDs get us into Rosenwald and Stuart. At night, the emptiness lends a surreal atmosphere. Sometimes I go in to run around and write papers.
Rockefeller has tours of the bell tower every Sunday. I really should go.
2012-02-22
Noticing
People never notice. When they walk into a room full of people, they tune the crowds out. When they start focusing on their work they never stop and look up, see how the room around them has changed. People never look at ceilings or (if possible) what's happening below. I think it might be a processing trick- it's a lot easier to
do stuff if you aren't constantly blasted by information overload.
I've been making an effort to be more aware of my surroundings. That means whenever I walk into a cafe I do a loop to see who I recognize, and taking breaks from my work every few minutes to get up and look around. I've managed to see dozens of familiar faces this way. People I haven't seen in weeks or months. They're always surprised when I walk up to them. Either they glazed over the crowd when they walked in, or didn't notice when I did.
Just the other day I was eating in one cafe when a good friend walked right past me and sat down at an adjacent table. I waited ten minutes before leaning over and poking him. His first question was "how long have you been there?"
do stuff if you aren't constantly blasted by information overload.
I've been making an effort to be more aware of my surroundings. That means whenever I walk into a cafe I do a loop to see who I recognize, and taking breaks from my work every few minutes to get up and look around. I've managed to see dozens of familiar faces this way. People I haven't seen in weeks or months. They're always surprised when I walk up to them. Either they glazed over the crowd when they walked in, or didn't notice when I did.
Just the other day I was eating in one cafe when a good friend walked right past me and sat down at an adjacent table. I waited ten minutes before leaning over and poking him. His first question was "how long have you been there?"
2012-01-29
Wordjot - Metahumor
Wordjot - Metahumor
“What’s the difference between Plato and Playdough? One’s so pliable you can mold it into whatever the hell you want. The other’s blue.”
Humor relies on the subversion of expectations. That’s why the Plato joke is funny. You have a normal situation: Wise Plato and putty Playdough. Then it’s suddenly reversed. But it only works because it taps into another expectation: that Plato is frustratingly vague in a lot of ways and easy to use to support anything. The punchline wouldn’t work as “One’s so pliable you can mold it into whatever the hell you want, the other FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH.” Your subversions are subverted. It’s still stupid.
I’ve recently been fascinated with another form of subversion: the metajoke. These play on your expectations of what a joke is. Some examples:
“How many people of a given stereotype does it take to change a lightbulb? N+1, 1 to change it and N to act in a stereotypical manner.” This points out the general template of the joke. This form is pretty common.
“A man walks into a bar. He’s an alcoholic. It’s destroying his family.” Antihumor, which subverts the expectation that there’s actually a joke.
“A rabbi, a priest, and a lawyer walk into a bar. The bartender asks ‘Is this some kind of joke?’” These directly call attention to the fact you’re hearing a joke.
“What’s the difference between a telephone pole and a motorcycle? 24, because a camel has two humps.” Possibly the most common type I’ve encounter, which derives it’s humor from the fact it makes no sense. Often called ‘Monkey Cheese’. I hate this kind.
Recently I’ve been really interested in another form, the joke dependent on another joke. Here’s one example:
“There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who know binary, and those who don’t. And those who know ternary.”
Not a great example, but still. It takes your expectation that this will be the common, heard-this-a-million-times-before joke on binary, and then plays on that. I’ve found these types really funny. They’re not that funny to most people, but since I’m really into humor theory I absolutely love them. That probably doesn't speak well about my sense of comedy.
“What’s the difference between Plato and Playdough? One’s so pliable you can mold it into whatever the hell you want. The other’s blue.”
Humor relies on the subversion of expectations. That’s why the Plato joke is funny. You have a normal situation: Wise Plato and putty Playdough. Then it’s suddenly reversed. But it only works because it taps into another expectation: that Plato is frustratingly vague in a lot of ways and easy to use to support anything. The punchline wouldn’t work as “One’s so pliable you can mold it into whatever the hell you want, the other FISH FISH FISH FISH FISH.” Your subversions are subverted. It’s still stupid.
I’ve recently been fascinated with another form of subversion: the metajoke. These play on your expectations of what a joke is. Some examples:
“How many people of a given stereotype does it take to change a lightbulb? N+1, 1 to change it and N to act in a stereotypical manner.” This points out the general template of the joke. This form is pretty common.
“A man walks into a bar. He’s an alcoholic. It’s destroying his family.” Antihumor, which subverts the expectation that there’s actually a joke.
“A rabbi, a priest, and a lawyer walk into a bar. The bartender asks ‘Is this some kind of joke?’” These directly call attention to the fact you’re hearing a joke.
“What’s the difference between a telephone pole and a motorcycle? 24, because a camel has two humps.” Possibly the most common type I’ve encounter, which derives it’s humor from the fact it makes no sense. Often called ‘Monkey Cheese’. I hate this kind.
Recently I’ve been really interested in another form, the joke dependent on another joke. Here’s one example:
“There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who know binary, and those who don’t. And those who know ternary.”
Not a great example, but still. It takes your expectation that this will be the common, heard-this-a-million-times-before joke on binary, and then plays on that. I’ve found these types really funny. They’re not that funny to most people, but since I’m really into humor theory I absolutely love them. That probably doesn't speak well about my sense of comedy.
2012-01-24
Wordjot - Spy Eye
I’ve occasionally wondered what I’d do if I ever lost my eye. I’d probably replace it with a spy cam. I’d wire the trigger to my eyelid, so I could trigger it by blinking. Two blinks would be video. Don’t know how I’ll handle zoom or flash, but I’ll figure something out.
Cameras are supposed to capture the world, right? But you can’t, not entirely as it was.
The camera is an inside-out Schrodinger’s box. The act of aiming it changes the scene. At the very least people clean up their postures and start looking uncomfortable. At worst the nice men in gas masks take it away and hit you with sticks. It’s hard to take a picture of the world as-is instead of world as wants-be.
That’s why I want a Glass Eye glass eye. It’d give me the power to take pictures without people realizing I’m taking pictures.
Or maybe I should just buy a spy pen.
Cameras are supposed to capture the world, right? But you can’t, not entirely as it was.
The camera is an inside-out Schrodinger’s box. The act of aiming it changes the scene. At the very least people clean up their postures and start looking uncomfortable. At worst the nice men in gas masks take it away and hit you with sticks. It’s hard to take a picture of the world as-is instead of world as wants-be.
That’s why I want a Glass Eye glass eye. It’d give me the power to take pictures without people realizing I’m taking pictures.
Or maybe I should just buy a spy pen.
2012-01-23
Wordsomething - MC Escher
I'm trying to figure out a new thing to call this. Wordsmithing sounds trite, and Wordblasting stupid. Wordbombing? Word Vomit? Wordering? Advice needed.
---
MC Escher
MC Escher is probably my favorite artist. I guess a lot of math majors think that. He made a lot of neat tessellations and impossible constructions. But I’ve always preferred the mindbenders. “Another World”, “House of Stairs”. I’m irrationally fond of his “Tower of Babel”, one of his earlier and less acclaimed pieces before he found fame in optical illusions.
I think the reason I love these pieces is what they do to reality. Most of the art I’ve come across either tries to represent the real world, like realism or cubism, or represent ideas, like Suprematism or modernism. Escher on the other hand feels like he’s destroying reality, presenting something that Can Not Be. It goes beyond normal optical illusions and impossible constructs into a sort of Lovecraftian insanity. My mind can tell there’s something but cannot comprehend the totality of it. To really get “Waterfall”, I feel like I’d have to break spacetime.
Which got me thinking. Escher uses 2D to go beyond 3D. Could you take that one step further? Maybe you could use 3D to go beyond 4D, like build a sculpture that- from the right point- looks exactly like a tesseract. Why haven’t we done this? Maybe Escher was a rare genius. Maybe we’d have to see 4D to know how to smash it. Maybe people have already done this and I’m just ignorant. No matter what, I’m excited to see what people do with it. If people do something with it. Here’s hoping.
---
MC Escher
MC Escher is probably my favorite artist. I guess a lot of math majors think that. He made a lot of neat tessellations and impossible constructions. But I’ve always preferred the mindbenders. “Another World”, “House of Stairs”. I’m irrationally fond of his “Tower of Babel”, one of his earlier and less acclaimed pieces before he found fame in optical illusions.
I think the reason I love these pieces is what they do to reality. Most of the art I’ve come across either tries to represent the real world, like realism or cubism, or represent ideas, like Suprematism or modernism. Escher on the other hand feels like he’s destroying reality, presenting something that Can Not Be. It goes beyond normal optical illusions and impossible constructs into a sort of Lovecraftian insanity. My mind can tell there’s something but cannot comprehend the totality of it. To really get “Waterfall”, I feel like I’d have to break spacetime.
Which got me thinking. Escher uses 2D to go beyond 3D. Could you take that one step further? Maybe you could use 3D to go beyond 4D, like build a sculpture that- from the right point- looks exactly like a tesseract. Why haven’t we done this? Maybe Escher was a rare genius. Maybe we’d have to see 4D to know how to smash it. Maybe people have already done this and I’m just ignorant. No matter what, I’m excited to see what people do with it. If people do something with it. Here’s hoping.
Project: Wordblasting
Two days ago I complained about how it's really hard to reach out to people in Facebook. Yesterday I realized I had a bunch of small writing ideas that couldn't carry their own project, but might be fun to share. Today I realized that G was never going to update Momenergy ever again. This gave me an idea.
I'm going to start updating Momenergy again with these bits and scraps of rants. Each one I will also send to three random people on Facebook and see how they react. The rants probably won't be available on general Facebook, but they'll always be accessible here.
Have two completely written out, one on MC Escher and one on metahumor. Going to upload them both over the next two days.
I'm going to start updating Momenergy again with these bits and scraps of rants. Each one I will also send to three random people on Facebook and see how they react. The rants probably won't be available on general Facebook, but they'll always be accessible here.
Have two completely written out, one on MC Escher and one on metahumor. Going to upload them both over the next two days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)