Happy Holidays

Christmas is too materialistic anyway...




(Got the idea for the Christmas tree/stock index image from Fast Money on CNBC)

Soothing the savage breast

So I'm listening to one of those free internet radio things, which is pretty good but not great but falls right into my price range. But I'm getting tired of the "dysfunctional holiday" music (a real category, and a pretty good one, at least this time of year) that I've listened to much of the day (except when someone came in for a meeting, so I switched to holiday jazz or smooth jazz or one of those white noise stations- a safer choice). So I'm looking for another music category.

I've been listening to outlaw country (another real category that I actually like) lately- and what's so "outlaw" about these guys getting millions of dollars to sing about the common man, which by the way isn't so common? Time for a change, though, so I try various categories. New age- at first seems pleasant; maybe I can get some work done. What are those snoring sounds? Oh, that's me; better change stations. Then I try traditional blues. Not bad, but after a while I start to have a craving for heroin. OK, "classical hits light"(might not be ready for the straight "classical hits" yet). I like some of that, but it turns out there really aren't too many classical "hits."

Better snap out of it; how about electronic/dance? I've now been listening to "Chill" for about six minutes, and I swear they've been playing the same five notes over and over all this time, with no vocals at all. This is silly, not even suitable for slow dancing (which, by the way, is the only kind men will tolerate, for obvious reasons). Out of curiosity, I'm switching to "Chill non-vocal," wondering how different can it be? Answer: not much, but maybe the undead can discern meaningful differences. What about "trance?" Same five notes, just played a lot faster. Kind of like it though. For about five minutes. What next? There's "disco." Ha! Barely survived it the first time; the nadir of civilization as we know it. (Did anyone that had a picture taken in the 1970s ever look good? I think there was something wrong with the cameras back then.)

Should I be adventurous and try Hip Hop/R&B? Sometimes I can find a few things I like there. After a few tunes it seems like everybody is angry. At me. What are the other categories? Let's see, there's hip hop, hip hop hits, hip hop/R&B, hip hop/R&B hits, 90s hip hop, party hip hop, old school rap, R&B, R&B hits, and it keeps going. That reminds me, I have to renew Sirius for my wife's car before the service that parses the broadcast universe into melodic dust goes out of business. Which brings me to rock. My "I give up" music "safe place." Sigh. There are 16 categories of rock. I try a few. Most of them sound pretty much the same. So I stick with "Party Rock" for a while; pretty good, but the darn thing keeps crashing. I think there's a message there somewhere.

Well, have to get going. I need to buy Christmas ipod knockoffs for my nine and seven year olds.

Helicopter Students

There has been a fair amount written about "Helicopter Parents," and they are certainly a topic in academic circles.

"The media, pediatricians, psychologists and even the college dean, they've all got you figured out -- or so they say. They're calling you a helicopter parent. Get it? Because you hover?

You're a baby boomer, right? OK, then. Listen up, because this is what they're saying about you:

		Guillermo Munro/P-I

You're too obsessed with your children. You treat them like little princes and princesses -- like they're No. 1, like they're MVPs. You've painstakingly planned their lives from their first play date to their first day of college.

They're your little Renaissance kids. You shuttle them from soccer practice, to clarinet lessons, to karate, and -- because they will be going to a great college -- to SAT prep class. Whoops! Speaking of which: You're late.

You inflate their egos. You give them graduation ceremonies even when it's just from preschool. You give them a trophy at the end of the season even when they lose. And by the time they get to college and are asked who their hero is, your child will say those words you long to hear: My dad. My mom.

Yes, helicopter parent, your intentions are good, but that rotor of yours is causing a din. Bring her down to terra firma. Let's talk." (from "No escape from 'helicopter parents'" by Felix Carroll)

But what about the child of these parents? We in academia often talk about these teflon students who have little concept of responsibility and consequences. Stay up all night to finish a paper? No, that would be bad for me, so of course I'll get an extension. Printer ran out of ink? It would be inconvenient to go to lab to print it, so of course I can email it or hand it in late. How could I get a C-? I've never gotten less than a B, so of course it must be the instructor's fault.

And why not? For some of you (and fortunately, we don't see great numbers of these students) it's never been your fault, and there's always been somebody there to fix it. Now we in college (and even in the workplace!) are seeing that somebody, and that somebody more often than not is your parent. We don't want to see your parent, as you are supposed to be the adult. It's bad enough that you may have an unrealistic sense of entitlement, and we understand that college is kind of a half-way house on the journey to adulthood, but speaking to overbearing, enabling parents is not only unpleasant and ridiculous, it is demeaning to all concerned, especially you. Yes, the road to hell is paved with the best intentions; sometimes your helping parents are not helping. But it is not completely their fault. You are allowing it.

We don't see as much of the helicopter phenomenon as a lot of places, and granted that technology such as the cell phone makes it so much easier to "stay in touch," but please don't let your parents be blackhawks.

Watcha Gott?

I was thinking about the Copernican Principle recently, and recalled an article sent to me by good friend RD. I went to look up the article he had sent, which was probably a summary of the Gott article cited below, but instead found the response I sent to him. Below is a brief overview of the principle and Gott's article, and I'm sure an online search would yield more detail if you're interested.

Copernican principle (from Wikipedia)

In cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured position. More recently, the principle is generalised to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe. In this sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle, with significant implications in the philosophy of science.

Since the 1990s, the term has been used (interchangeably with "the Copernicus method") for J. Richard Gott's Bayesian inference-based prediction of duration of ongoing events, a generalized version of the Doomsday argument.

Hypothesis

Nature 363, 315 - 319 (27 May 1993); doi:10.1038/363315a0

Implications of the Copernican principle for our future prospects

J. Richard Gott III

Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA

Making only the assumption that you are a random intelligent observer, limits for the total longevity of our species of 0.2 million to 8 million years can be derived at the 95% confidence level. Further consideration indicates that we are unlikely to colonize the Galaxy, and that we are likely to have a higher population than the median for intelligent species.

Hi [RD]:

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I’ve actually been thinking about this article on and off for a while. As best as I can determine it’s bad news for God, but really doesn’t affect the rest of us too much. The reason is it is really hard (for me) to think of many instances where Gott’s assertions would apply, since a key premise is that no other information, particularly in a temporal sense, is available and applicable beyond the current observation. But how many things are there for which we have absolutely no experience or, and here’s the important part, perceived analogous experience or relevant information? (which is probably why so many things taste like chicken)

The second key premise (the Copernican principle), the concept that there is probably nothing terribly special about the current observation, situation, object, etc., is a profound one and points to elements of human nature (values, desire for control, importance, etc.). More specifically, the principle encourages us to view information objectively rather than subjectively. Good point, but easier said than done, and some would say impossible.

Thirdly, Gott uses probability as the basis for his calculations, relying on the old academic standard of two standard deviations, or 95% about the mean. For a two-tailed test, that’s 2.5% on each end, and voila, the observation is somewhere between 1/40th remaining and 1/40th completed. It could just as easily have been assume you’re equally likely to have the remaining time more or less than the observed/confirmed time (now at the midpoint), or use one standard deviation (somewhere between 1/6th remaining and 1/6th completed), etc.

And now the fun begins. As you might expect, I see this as marketing. Instead of saying, “If you have no pertinent information about the observation, assume that the observation is random,” say that “If you have no pertinent information about the observation, apply the reasoning of Copernicus.” That is clever in the way it allows us common folk to have easy access to and application of the thoughts of a genius. People love deep, complex truths that may be expressed and understood in shallow and simple ways. (Whatever happened to EST, transcendental meditation, and a thousand similar revealed truths?) And I like the way it subtly critiques “The world revolves around me” mentality. This is not to demean the value of such a “Copernican concept,” as divorcing biases, preconceptions, etc., is important. Just give Gott credit for thinking of a catchy name for it. Also, probability plays a central role in my life and thinking, and I think it’s good that people learn to apply it more. The fact that the statistical standard chosen is arbitrary but consistent with orthodox notions of confidence levels- fine, why not. So it’s good that Gott gets us away from subjective thinking and encourages the use of statistics in addressing an “unknown.” However, how much is really completely “unknown?”

Now we are at the nub of it. I think that you have to apply the Copernican principle in order to apply the Copernican principle. That is, in order to conclude that the observation is random and that no other pertinent information is available and applicable, you have to assume that which you conclude. Maybe it is safer to argue that whatever information we have is likely of little value, and maybe even harmful (in which case we be out of a job). But maybe it is more useful to try to figure out how to better use what is available. Gott gives us some tools, and that’s good. But how about analyzing, deducing, inferring, discovering, and whatever else we can do to find patterns , relationships, explanations, etc., that will allow us to make more than a Gott prediction? I’m not saying that the Red Sox win when I wear my red shirt, the slot machine is ready to hit, or she is my one and only soulmate… it’s just that the availability and applicability of information may be more than we know.

Gee, I just wanted to say thanks for the article, and here I am an hour later having taken up too much of your time. According to Gott, I’ve somewhere between two minutes and 40 hours left to go.

-Dave