How My Son Lights Up My Life

Allister, my one year old son, has recently learned that he can turn a light on or off with the flip of a switch. It's not that easy for him to flip those switches as it is for adults, he can't normally reach high enough. I put a bench for him to stand on by the light switch in his room the other day and he turned the light on and off to his heart's content. He giggled and pointed with glee at the way lights would shine forth or hide themselves at his command. It was one of those joyful moments of parenting to see my boy learning, appreciating, and enjoying the world around him and his place in it.

Seeing my child find such happiness in turning on and off a light inspired me to consider how wonderful a thing that really was. Why shouldn't he be excited? It wasn't that long ago that lighting his room would have required lighting some sort of fire, and been significantly more dangerous. I'll let my son play with a light switch, but I wouldn't let him play with matches. Risk aside, it is easier to flip a switch than even the simple process striking a match and touching it to the wick of a candle.

The infrastructure required to make this happen is remarkable to consider. I have a fleet of servants devoted to ensuring that electrical current flows properly to my house. Sure, I share those services with thousands of other people, but I receive a service that many of the stateliest lordly manners full of servants didn't enjoy.

I once had a history professor opine that, "civilization is the gift we get for free." I often consider how fortunate we are to live in the time we now live. Not everyone would agree with me, but I reject the thinking of the paleo-nostalgia and 'born in the wrong era' crowd. I like to remind people that it wasn't until 1980 that smallpox was a very real threat to human life and happiness. Now, it's one so theoretical it's hard to think of it as real rather than as fictional as other elements of Victorian romances, Gothic horror stories, and wild west adventures. Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of our Nature presents convincing evidence of how much violence (not just to one another but even toward animals - did you know cat burning as a form of entertainment in medieval times?) has declined throughout human history. It's almost certain that the future will be even better than our era, but even by the meager standards of rivalry and jealousy we can look back on the whole of human history and smile smugly at how we have it better.

That's an exercise that we need to actively perform, though. Whether you call it the hedonic treadmill, progress of civilization, or just ungratefulness it's easy for even the most wonderful things to become commonplace and ignored. We relegate miracles to an expectation, and then become grumpy when they stop being performed for us, if even for only a few hours. I'm blessed to be a parent, because when I see my son learning to walk, trying new foods, or playing with the light switch I can see a glimpse of the world through the experience of someone from whom that world is new and unknown. The world I see from those eyes with my much more mature perspective seems pretty wonderful.

I Love My Phone, I Hate the Phone Industry

In college I built my own computer. It was a great experience, and I still use that computer 7 years later when writing this. Saying you built your own computer tends to earn a lot of tech savvy points with the average person, but it's really not that hard. A lot's changed since the days of Wozniak's home brew club & the Altair, and these days you can by the parts and put them together without much more difficulty than assembling a piece of Ikea furniture. If you need an upgrade later, you can open your case up & snap a piece in.

This ease is based in no small part on the standardization of the ATX & PCI standards, a set of guidelines for how hardware should be made in such a way as to be compatible with other devices. One thing that's impressed and worried me lately is the dearth of such a standard for cell phones, and the perhaps anemic attempts to create one. It's an unfortunate marker of the way technology has gone from a scientific industry with the goal of empowering individuals and humankind to a consumer industry chasing fashion and trendiness, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

People are talking a lot these days about a little thing a little, 3.5 millimeter thing. Apple decided not to include a headphone jack on their phones, Google is following suit with their latest Pixel, and the creator of the android OS also axed the jack with the Essential Phone. The last one really bugs me, because empowering the tech consumer with more choices is one of the reasons why essential was founded, and yet the most ubiquitous, easy to use, and powerful interface options was deemed unnecessary.

OK, when I started this blog I wanted to stick to bigger issues, things that effect society or even humanity. Why am I letting myself get distracted by the minutia of what's popular in cell phones these days? Well, it's because this is a symptom of a larger, much more insidious cultural disease. Wow, OK that could be overselling it, but as I've mentioned before the choice to go with something stylish or convenient instead of something which creates an empowering infrastructure is perilous.

The Essential phone has some special connectors for accessories. Motorola is making phones with attachable accessories as well, but they go the extra mile of providing a developer kit for independent companies that want to produce these. The highest level of this was the now tragically defunct Project Ara which planned to produce an entirely modular smartphone. It also had the distinction of being the only project I know of that would have released a standard that could be used by any company to produce appropriate components. If the essential accessories or moto mods take off, any other manufacturer that wants to let customers use these will have to license the specifications from essential or Motorola, and that means they probably won't proliferate anytime soon.

And thus we, the consumer, have to be content taking whatever the phone companies decide to give us. Oh, we can shop around a little for more memory here or a better camera there, but the reality is we can't really choose what we want in our phones, or how they work. A handful of tech giants makes those decisions for us. And that's not only true for phones. that's true for social networks, gaming platforms, and more. What's the more? Well, perhaps news organizations, political parties, and advertisements. This is where the insidious cultural disease part comes up. Most people have their phone on them for most of the day in 2017. We can't act like decisions about how that works being made by some team of marketers and engineers rather than individuals is OK and won't siphon away independence and freedom from the individual.

Anger at God

During recent tragedy one thing that's changed is my conception about being angry with God. To be clear, I'm not sure I can say I have ever been angry with God in my life. Some may ask why, and it's likely because I've never really taken the absolutist, omnipotent, or total control of every worldly detail view of God. I believe God is only omnipotent as they have access to all power, and even then I understand that a belief in a just God obviates the ability to believe in an omnipotent God as certain laws greater than that God must then be followed. I've also believed strongly in free will, and that God's protection or preservation thereof is a necessary condition for their existence, or at least their Godhood. However, I am also convinced in a personal God, one who cares deeply for their children and wishes involvement in their lives (but like any good parent, must limit their involvement to allow independence to develop).

I find the parental analogy very compelling, and this has led me to an interesting thought on being angry with God. A quick search on being angry with God will reveal how many people are uncomfortable with the idea. It feels blasphemous, perhaps, but I think there's one person who's quite OK with people being angry at God and that's God themself.

My wife and I hope to have kids, and that hope's no longer in the distant future, so I've read the occasional article about parenting, discussed it with friends and family, and tried to gain what experience I can watching over others' children. I've learned that a mature adult generally weathers the storm and is understanding of a child's anger, even though it often ends up pointed toward them, without becoming upset or angry about the situation themselves. Good parents understand and allow their children to become angry, they often don't take it personally, and recognize that they may have to accept their child's fury themselves because understanding the larger situation is beyond the child (at least at this point in their development).

Some of this thinking may have come together when a friend of mine who is a mother took a sip of her son's drink, leading to a short spat of crying and yelling, "I didn't want you to do that!" over and over. That moment seemed so childish, crying out wishing an event hadn't happened but not providing any ideas for redress or seemingly unwilling to come to an understanding or acceptance of the painful reality of what's occurred, and yet it also seemed so familiar as I and my loved ones were often doing the same only our yells were, "I wish she hadn't died." This may seem uncaring on my part to compare a child's displeasure and losing out on a sip of milk to the death of a loved one, but from God's perspective it might not be so different, and again I find the similarities of the emotional turmoil experienced eerily similar.

Yes, I'm certainly speaking from a Christian perspective here, but I've tried to ensure I'm speaking in the most general terms. If you're an atheist, agnostic, or otherwise unaligned or undecided allow me to speak to you a little more closely at this time, and if you're one of my Christian or otherwise theistic audience members lend me some latitude for a moment. One of the important roles of God is that of an abstraction, or even verbal shorthand. Some theists like to make much of Einstein's very profound theism, but the God of Einstein probably more resembled the impersonal physical laws pervading all creation through all time than the proverbial sky daddy in which many of them might profess faith. From this perspective anger at God is easy to understand; we're angry at the whims of fortune that brought us to our current place (and hey, like the ancient myth-makers knew when they came up with Thor, Ares, or Sopona it's more cathartic to personify your ill fate than to allow it to persist ethereal).

So I think God completely accepts our anger towards them. That said, anger isn't a healthy emotion. Without even addressing the psychology, it increases blood pressure and depresses the immune system so it is unwise to maintain for long periods of time. I think this is why forgiveness is so powerful, and so important. The concept of forgiveness is often abused, taken to mean we can't treat people or entities with suspicion or coolness when that may be exactly what is deserved, but I think forgiveness starts with releasing the feelings of rancor and hatred toward others. Forgiveness can go beyond that, but often anything beyond that requires penitence on the part of the trespasser, so the beginning may well be the most important part of forgiveness if only because it will be the most often used.

Whether one conceives of God as a loving cosmic Allfather or even as an impersonal cosmic force permeating the universe and seen in its structure and beauty we can accept anger toward God, and perhaps even recognize it as necessary at times. When to move beyond this anger, to forgive God and once again connect with the omnipresent divinity will depend on the individual and is likely to be a difficult task. I pray those in need may do so, and hope these meager thoughts on the matter help.

Pluto Should Never Have Been a Planet

I just finished reading Mike Brown's How I Killed Pluto and Why it had it Coming, and it was a fantastic read.  It got me thinking of so many things; scientific progress and history, how the public perceives scientific ideas, becoming entrenched in a way of thinking, distress over change, and how so much of education seems to be storing data in memory rather than learning algorithms (and man for some reason I've really been connecting with my inner computer scientist lately) are just some of the highlights.  It's amazing how much depth there is to the trivial or technical classification details of a rock out there past Neptune.  There's one more aspect of the book that I loved, Mike Brown's humanity in his love for his wife, his daughter, and the sky, but I think I'll write about that in detail later.

I remember when Pluto was reclassified.  Many jokingly consoled forlorn Pluto, kicked out of the planet club by the big boys.  After reading the book I find it odd, why did no one talk about Eris (the Kuiper belt object actually larger than Pluto which theoretically could have been the tenth planet)?  Why did no one bring up Charon, Pluto's moon which is almost as large as Pluto?  Why did no one discuss what exactly it meant to be a planet, and how exciting it was that we were learning more about our solar system in finding so much out there in a whole new asteroid belt out beyond the gas giants, the aforementioned Kuiper belt?

I've groused before on this blog about the dreadful way mathematics is taught, perhaps it's time to get some of that ire up for science as well.  One thing the book made clear is that we all learned that the planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and (as we learned at least) Pluto.  Did any of us ever learn what a planet is?  I think the 'Pluto controversy' pretty clearly indicates no, we didn't.  If we had we would have always found Pluto's planethood a little odd.

Pluto's moon doesn't orbit around it, they orbit around each other.  Pluto's orbit is eccentric from the other planets.  Pluto is smaller than many planet's moons, including Earth's.  To kids and creatives that might make Pluto mysterious and fascinating (it did to Mike Brown as a child), but to scientists and logical thinkers it seems misplaced in the solar system.  And indeed it was.

But no one really seemed to feel that way.  We all sort of felt bad for Pluto, and some people might have even been upset.  I think there's two major components why.  The first is, as I alluded to, the way we learn science.  The next is our unwillingness to accept change.

Thinking about the Pluto controversy I am brought to worry that we are often taught 'the way things are'.  Mike Brown talks about trying to get students out of the mindset of, "Give me the answers I need to know for the test".  The unfortunate implication is that something gets them into this mindset in the first place.  Standardized testing is a convenient and popular target for modern problems in education, but I'd feel remiss if I didn't mention that of necessity it requires students to memorize and later regurgitate facts, and testing any deeper thought processes is at the very least much more difficult.

I read a NYT article that talked about why teaching the difference between fact and opinion like we currently do in schools is morally perilous, as well as simply fundamentally misguided.  It points out interesting ideas, like how teaching children that facts are provable and true causes them to equate truth with provability, even though they're very different things.  I think a focus on 'facts' in science class also carries a dogmatic implication for young students.  Science is always true because we collected evidence for our ideas.  Here's where the distress comes up; Pluto no longer being a planet means facts can change as our understanding does.

And that opens up a whole new can of worms in our minds.  It forces introspection and meta-cognition, in which sadly most of us are loath to participate.  It creates a crisis of certainty, because after all if Pluto being a planet isn't true what other tidbits we learned might not be true?  Doubt is, unfortunately, scary to many.  We're unwilling to change our thinking, to update our knowledge, to print retractions or errata for our memories.  This is why teachings of humility are so important.  They allow us to maintain our sense of self and identity even when we're forced to change our thinking, context, or experience.

A great idea that came together for me when I read The Island of Knowledge is that science must necessarily be the least sure of itself of all human endeavors or reservoirs of understanding.  It must be forever willing to except new evidence or observation which proves previous ideas wrong, and moreover perhaps must forever be seeking these out.  No less than the well known and liked Neil DeGrasse Tyson recently said in a podcast I listened to that the greatest problem is always dogmatism, because it ends a conversation and makes learning from others difficult or impossible.  Let's take this to heart, accept that Pluto should never have been a planet, and rejoice in the fascinating newly unfolding mysteries of that Kuiper belt.

Resolutions

I'm finding myself having trouble with new years resolutions this year.  I've always liked new years, and making resolutions.  I love the idea of sweeping away old habits and improving oneself by developing new ones.  I love the introspection and self examination making goals for the new year can bring.  I love looking forward to to the possibilities and opportunities of a new year.  This year, I'm having trouble, though.

One question I'm struggling with is what manner is best for making new years resolutions.  I've traditionally followed the pattern of building one resolution in four areas of life: social, physical, spiritual, and intellectual/professional.  Reading Baumeister and Tierney's Willpower I began to question this strategy.  They suggest that one should limit themselves to only one new years resolution, as having several causes them to distract from one another.

This doesn't seem unreasonable, and as I'm looking at things I want to do this year they all seem to roughly fit under a sort of unifying umbrella.  I've been thinking about creating a resolution this year that's more of a mission or values statement and peppering a few specific goals under that.  I'm not that interested in having a non-specific focus, though, and prefer to focus on the quantifiable and observable to something I can convince myself is motivating or working without having anything to look at to support or refute those assertions.

I'm also wondering if this is a good year for resolutions at all.  Much of this year will be just transitioning through larger changes in life that fit in to broader goals and plans of mine and my family.  I'll be starting my new job, finishing my associates degree and certifying as an MLT.  All of these plans are probably what I'll really be focusing on, and don't really require any new goals or resolutions for 2016 to progress.  So to all of my friends, should I make resolutions this year?  If so, how?

Trick or Treating: The Last Bastion of Neighborhood Community?

People don't know their neighbors any more.  Our interactions are more and more impersonal, mediated by computers.  We have fewer and fewer real communities to engage in.  They're being replaced by forums and social networking groups.  These things aren't as bad as people often make them out to be, but they do present problems.  We're cut off from genuine interaction.  It's being replaced with a type of self promotion, making it harder and harder to 'be ourselves' and be accepted for who we are.  We're exposed to less diversity because we don't spend time with those whose ideas and opinions differ from us.  Churches, neighborhood barbecues, and kids playing in the street used to serve these purposes.  Most people don't go to church these days, I can't remember the last time I heard about a neighborhood barbecue, and we setup play dates for the kids nowadays.  There's one area that still hearkens back to the days of the local community, though.

Trick or treating is a wonderful Halloween tradition that builds a neighborhood.  Once a year parents and kids walk around, say hi to their neighbors, show off costumes, and share sweets.  What a classic community building activity that is!  Families can talk afterward about how cute the kid down the street looked dressed up like a princess, or which families in town gave out the best candy.  Finally, a time when a family can discuss their neighbors and how much they enjoyed spending some time with them!

This is an important lesson for our children, too.  364 days a year we tell our kids about 'stranger danger,' but on Halloween they're finally encouraged to meet new people.  They're rewarded with candy, given to them in return for wearing an amusing costume and displaying it for thirty seconds at the neighbor's door.  This activity will teach them that they don't have to be suspicious and scared of every person they share the world with.  They might even learn that many people are kind human beings.

Even this noble tradition is dying out, though.  We're learning how to make imitation trick or treating that, like imitation food, is a pale shadow of the real thing that carries little of the original value.  Church groups do 'trunk or treats' to make sure families can collect candy with kids while remaining insulated from their neighbors and any community they don't approve of.  Trick or treating routes are less and less up and down the street you live on and instead are becoming visits to homes of family friends.  Some people in a sickening twisting of the tradition in pursuit of efficiency and increasing returns worthy of a heartless corporation go up into the wealthy areas of town, spurning their own neighbors, because 'they give better candy.'

Let's not become that people.  Let's continue to love our neighbors and even learn to enjoy their company.  Let's teach our kids to build a community and meet those they share the world with.  Let's go trick or treating around our neighborhood this Halloween.

Crying About Mathematics

I recently saw this image posted on Facebook and then looked at the last 3 posts from Grammarly, the original poster.  We have a think piece on whether universities should require writing proficiency for graduation, a joke about precision and exactitude in grammar standards leading to vandalism (with indications that that's at least understandable) and a prettied up quote from John Dewey that, "Education is not the preparation for life; it is life itself."  That last one is particularly interesting in contrast with this image and it leads to the obvious implication that what they really mean is, "Education (in the arts, humanities, and soft sciences) is deeply fulfilling and enriches life to the point of making it worth living, but of course we know technical sciences and mathematics are just painful things to be suffered through."

This is probably a good example of why US culture is so innumerate (the numerical equivalent to illiterate, a term coined by John Allen Paulos) and inept at scientific thought.  This is where we get the reflex of credibility toward the phrases "experts say" or "studies show" or the news stories that butcher or manipulate statistics to serve whatever purpose hits the emotional agenda of the story.  I'll be the first to admit (and then probably go on a tirade about the problem for however long you listen plus ten minutes) that our mathematics education is just heinous and obsolete to a point that would be absurd if it weren't so damaging and dangerous.  With that said the solution is certainly not to perpetuate the idea that these things are hard, stressful, and just generally unpleasant.

I've written here before about the nobility and importance of mathematics, and this one won't be the last time I do, so perhaps I'm just belaboring an idea, but I'm going to list out some of mathematics' virtues anyway.

• Math is Mind Expanding: Mathematics deals with concepts that can go beyond normal human experience.  How often do you work with the infinite?  Did you know there were several different sizes of infinity, and that some infinities are larger than others?  I had a very serious discussion with some family and friends recently about dimensional figures and the nature of God.  I wear a metal Möbius band (a strip that has only one side, yes really) on a necklace that was given to me by my wife.
• Math is Humbling: The humanities are important largely because they teach us to think emotionally, form opinions, and understand the human experience.  Math, and the sciences (though perhaps to a lesser degree), teach us to think rationally, examine our ideas, and understand the world around us and, yes, the human experience as well.  In mathematics one thing must strictly follow from the last and we must learn to abide by the rules of the operations we're performing.  We can form and idea or an opinion just as easily as we can in any humanities class, but then we're told to really look at that, to see if it makes sense in context, and it can become starkly clear when it's not.  Humanities often remind us that how we perceive and judge the world around us matters.  Mathematics, and the sciences, remind us that the laws of systems (like the universe) don't just bend to our will because we think we have a better idea of how things should be.
• Math Teaches Self Awareness: Like my last point, the requirements within mathematics that we "stay within the lines" as we progress form one thought to the next in our process of proving, computing, or deriving new information means we need to learn to watch our thoughts, and see where they fail to stay consistent with our principles.  Learning how we think, how one thought in the mind springs from the last and whether that process is working properly or in need of reform is pretty clearly an invaluable skill that will better society if widespread.

So if math is so wonderful, why is it so often denigrated, like in the image above depicting it as something that is sure to spawn sadness and strife sufficient to stimulate sobbing?  Why is this far from the first post to the effect of, "Ooh math really sucks, don't you all agree?" that has gotten shared around?  Why do people flaunt their ignorance or lack of active engagement in mathematics with phrases like, "I totally forgot how any of that stuff works, but hey I'm never going to use it again, right?"  Why does that receive knowing chuckles and appreciative nods instead of the derision or contemplative sadness such ignorance or loss of talent should garner ("I can't remember a thing about the Civil War, but who cares?  I'm not becoming a historian," "I used to be able to play the oboe, but now I can hardly even remember the basic fingerings," "Why did I even do all of that reading in high school?  I never ended up being in a Shakespeare play or even going to one.")?

Well, there are systematic problems.  Like I said we teach math horribly (in the US at least), especially at the elementary level which means that when children are forming their emotional understandings they learn early that math is something hard and to be feared.  It doesn't help that so many who shape the culture are also the worst at mathematics and mathematical thinking.  Still, none of these jabs at "that painful and useless old field, math" seem to present solutions or even raise awareness about the problems of media misrepresentation or the need for educational STEM reform.

I've been told that it's about thinking differently, that the jokes are just trying to say, "Oh man, my brain sure doesn't work that way," but mathematicians and scientists aren't sharing Facebook memes about how useless writing and art are.  The most I've seen are more along the lines of, "Boy it's really frustrating how misrepresented we are and how poorly understood and distorted our work is when presented for public consumption."  Also, I don't really buy that our thinking is all that different.  When I tutored mathematics the problem really seemed to be more about attitude.  People didn't put effort into learning or doing mathematics because they thought it was hard, boring, or just not important to them.  With effort they picked up the concepts just fine, but the attitudes that surround math made them reticent in putting forth that effort.

Math students have often been taught in what one teacher of mine referred to as the GMTED or the "Give Me The Equation, D***it!" mindset.  Try to discuss the concepts behind the figures, the real meaning of the numbers and symbols and they shut down and demand you give them a simple formula so they can mechanically plug numbers in.  Math education is too often a "human programming" job, using drills, memorization, and routines to create humans that will carry out operations to compute a value.  This must change, but can't if people believe that actually thinking about math is something they're incapable of because, "their brain just doesn't work that way."

So I beg of you, respect mathematics.  Let's leave behind the antiquated views of math as prima facie unappealing as we leave behind the systems that have made thousands fail to understand the beauty and wisdom it contains.  Let's elevate our understanding of ourselves by doing meditative mathematics.  Let's elevate our understanding of the universe by understanding the language in which God wrote it.  Let's create a society that values this great field of human thought and endeavor that's gifted us the computer, engineering, and so much more.  Let's create an intellectualism that, to paraphrase the apocryphal inscription above Plato's Academy, lets none but mathematicians enter; not out of elitism or to exclude readers, writers, artists, and other so-called non-math people but in recognition that a complete philosopher will be mathematician in addition to artist, reader, theologian, writer, and more as he or she embraces all the many worthy areas of endeavor in the vast yet limited expanse of human knowledge.