Changing Memory

Memory is a remarkable quality in anyone's life. When we look back on the past we can see birthdays, friendships, inside jokes, sadness, laughs, little snapshots of things that have happened in our lives. Some of these have become vague, while others have remained crisp and clear, almost seeming immune to the sands of time...or so we may think.

We looked at an article some time ago and it was all about how human memory is actually ridiculously inaccurate. The human brain is not a machine and we only truly perceive everything through electrical impulses (from various senses) that our brain interprets. The problem is that these same processes are created through imagination as well. What this means is that it becomes remarkably easy to manipulate memories. Researchers were able to convince subjects of memories such as hugging Bug Bunny in Disney World as a child with the right faked evidence (Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros. character, would never be at Disney). As I said before, it also shows yet again how unrealistic it is in court to rely on eye-witness testimony.

Metaphor!

What would it be like to have perfect memory? Only one woman on Earth can answer that question and that is a subject known as AJ. She possesses the ability to remember precisely what happened on any given date of her life down to the smallest detail. It's a skill that has utterly baffled neurologists. She's lucky to have the perspective of it being a gift, however she admits it's difficult when you can remember terrible memories in vivid detail. How awful would it be to have the ability to play back some of the most hurtful moments of your life perfectly?

No, AJ is not an elephant.

If memories have the potential to be so unreliable, why do we even bother with them? It's because memories are a big part of who we are. As cool as it would be to remember everything in vivid detail for a few days, it wouldn't make you happy. Memories are meant to be the past, not the present. That said, being able to look back on memories is important because it can give you some standing about how you got to where you are today. If you took a high-paying corporate job for instance and realized after three years you had no happy family memories, it might be a wake-up call to make a change. We are the product of our past experiences.

The ability to erode memories is actually a survival instinct if you ask me. In fact, if I recall, the article stated that the mind will actually shape memories to benefit you more. Fantasize them up out of their reality. Anyways, forgetting. It's not because I believe all memories are inherently bad, not true at all. The fact that they do though is only more inspiration to create new ones. If a memory is something that isn't meant to linger, than we realize that the moment is infinitely more precious.

Never stop questioning.

Links!
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1738881&page=2 -AJ
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/perfect-mem/ -AJ

The Illusion of Confidence

"Fake it until you make it." -Steven Tyler

We talked about masks awhile ago and I think it's pretty self-evident that we all wear masks, or in the very least have worn them at some point in our lives. It's just a natural survival impulse that if the environment is a certain way we should act in whatever manner will likely lead us to survive or ideally towards success. I greatly dislike the idea of a mask drastically different than one's self, but subtle aspects such as being more outgoing may play out to your advantage. That said, I believe one of the most common masks people wear, or what they strive for in their individuality, is confidence.

Timmy is ready to take on the world.

I mean it's only natural because people are much more certain of and trust those who know what they're doing, which confidence portrays. It's not typically the people who stutter or mumble that you see in successful positions, especially not in the corporate world.

Confidence is an interesting trait because it doesn't really mean wisdom or skill, but merely a sense of certainty in one's self. I was going through the library recently and stumbled upon an interesting book called, The Invisible Gorilla. All about how our intuition commonly fails us; I read a section detailing how any confidence was more or less a hoax.

The example given was that a person who acquired lyme disease went to the doctor, who grabbed their medical book and used it as a source to indicate the condition and prescribe a treatment in front of the patient. This was appalling to the patient because when we go to the doctor we of course want someone who knows what they're doing... or apparently appears to. A study was done and patients felt much more at ease when their doctor prescribed a treatment, despite them being unsure and not saying so. The patient who received the reference however was cleared up in no time after the prescription was filled. Isn't that the important thing?

Eye-witness testimony was another example and how despite an individual's extremely confident testimony is more likely to sway juries, it is generally only 70% accurate. That means that roughly a third of the time it's wrong. Finally, there's the correlation between ignorance and higher confidence. Poorly skilled criminals for instance are generally much more confident in their abilities, whereas more knowledgeable individuals in any profession are a better judge of their abilities. This tends to be why you see so many duds on shows like American Idol. The general consensus was that people will often overestimate their abilities, while only a small few will actually underestimate said skills. Doing the extreme of either can have dire consequences.

Confidence is really the most important element of rhetoric and sadly has a huge influence in how likely we are to instill trust in people, whether based in fact or not. The problem is that when a doctor admits that they don't know someone's condition it usually stuns the patient, despite it probably being in their self best interest to find a doctor who can. This is why second opinions are extremely important.

Personally, I believe that confidence is a valuable skill because it transitions into your work and growth, however it should be a product of skill rather than simply general persona. That said, experience should be what we look for when trusting individuals, not primarily how they carry themselves. The above quote about temporarily faking confidence until you achieve it is fair, but you wouldn't want a doctor to take the same approach, so I think that true confidence is accepting when you're out of your element. Moral. Show reasonable confidence in yourself and careful skepticism in that which is shown by others.

Never stop questioning.

Can We Ditch Our Bias?

"Bias has to be taught. If you hear your parents downgrading women or people of different backgrounds, why, you are going to do that." -Barbara Bush

This blog has talked a bit about individuality as well as advertisement and society, but something I never really touched on to any real extent was the nature of bias itself as a concept separate from ourselves.

Bias can be seen as these glasses in which we view the world. Everyone has them and can look at the same object or circumstance, but see entirely different things. Justice and science often try to view things from an objective point of view, almost like trying to see things for what they are. The problem is that human beings are not objective thinkers, but subjective by nature. By trying to view things with a completely objective point of view, we're really just trying to throw another pair of bias glasses over the pair we typically wear. The outcome is trying to combine two completely different prescriptions. It doesn't work and you look funny.

Exhibit A.

That said, I think it's a safe assumption to say that human beings are biased by nature, and the easiest thing to do about this is to just accept it. It's a natural human trait, but the question is whether or not we're stuck with the same glasses forever.

There's a website I'll link to the bottom that's all about you filling out this little test to tell you what your bias is toward certain ideas (sexual preference, whether you have a nationalistic view of the world, etc.). Of course it's not meant to be a guarantee of anything by any stretch of the imagination (I know a happily married man who according to the survey is slightly gay, and I myself got that I apparently have no preference for gender) but it brings up the idea of us being ignorant to our own biases. Think about it. How often do you see someone being racist and when you mention it to them they flatout deny it?

Don't bother grandma, he's ignorant.

Anyways, one of the quizzes I took was the gender association one (deciding which gender was better associated with the sciences and which with the humanities) and the result was a little disturbing.

"Your data suggests a moderate association of Male with Science and Female with Humanities compared to Female with Science and Male with Humanities."

The quiz is essentially saying that I don't agree with the feminist movement and support the idea that women don't have a place among the profession traditionally reserved for men. A bit off the deep end? Perhaps, considering the test just asked which gender I associated more with what. Still, I can't help but feel like I wasn't overly surprised... which is awful. For starters, it's not even something I feel is true; I mean men and women are different for sure, but I don't really put one above another for intelligence. They think differently. On the one hand society apparently agrees thinking this view is right, but on the other hand I have some close friends who demonstrate the opposite on a daily basis. Is my bais shaped by both sides? How can I contradict myself by believing one idea so strongly, yet have a hint of doubt?

I guess the question I poise is whether we can truly change a bias, especially if it's one you don't agree with. I like to think that we can, but we have to be smart enough to open ourselves enough to allow these changes to take root. It's not easy though, and if you close yourself off it'll never happen. If it weren't true, then society would be the same as it has been from the beginning. Despite society depicting the world as being solely male-dominated, do I think that should be the case? Hell no. It is high time for a change in favour of equality. I live by the idea of "loving to be proven wrong" because if I am, then my theory only gets stronger from adapting to the correction. This case is no exception and I encourage it because I can actually see it becoming true in the eyes of the determined people in my life. If you can believe it, you can make it true. I look forward to the day I can look back at my broken pair of glasses and laugh. If I can do it, then anyone in society can. Go ahead world. Prove me wrong.

Never stop questioning.
*Here's the link if you want to try some tests yourself*
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/canada/selectatest.jsp

The Human Connection

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7583894250854515095#t

The above is a clip... well actually the entire phenomenal film that is Waking Life. There are countless philosophical theories and ideas to tackle in this piece, but what struck me truly deeply was the idea of collective consciousness (the scene around 21 mins in if you're interested).

The idea of a connection between every human being is not a new one, however what truly fascinated me in this dialogue was the use of examples to support it. I mean there are examples throughout society of similar concepts springing up at the same time completely independent of one another. The telephone is one example, so much so that it actually became a race who could patent it first.

What truly got my attention was the crossword experiment. Basically the test was that several researchers monitored the abilities of avid crossword enthusiasts for some time. One day they slipped in a day old crossword, one that had already been solved by thousands of people, and their scores increased by 20%. A dramatic jump.

But were they brave enough to use pen?

One can say that this is all philosophy so it doesn't really hold water out in the real world. That person wouldn't know a thing about "Noetic Science". It's a legitimate field of science aimed towards the human consciousness and its relationship with the physical world. It looks into questions like, "What is the weight of the human soul?" and even has experiments to research the matter. The book, The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown is what first introduced me to this, and although as a work of fiction it stretches the possibility of the material, the basic principles seem pretty grounded.

The reason I chose to explore this principle is because in class we focus a great deal on the idea that Being is nothing more than a figment of our imagination. While I agree that Becoming plays a gigantic role in our world there is a layer beneath that runs much deeper in our veins behind the scenes. This metaphysical line of thought of whether there is a soul or the idea of cumulative memory are such concepts. I personally agree with such thoughts and if they hold true, perhaps no human being should ever truly feel alone.

In terms of what we've been discussing lately about society, the idea of cumulative knowledge lends some element of ease that we're less likely to make the same mistakes our ancestors did. So instead of society in a constant cycle, the human race would be in a perpetual movement forwards. It also encourages the idea that individuals with new lines of thought (in terms of government) might not be the only ones.
Whether you like it or not, humans have a strange paradox of society. We enjoy the freedoms of individuality and fulfillment our personal needs, while also seeking to form some kind of community. I agree with the above clip and it forges a deep bond between all humans. The concept of this wealth of information within our subconscious is fascinating. It brings new meaning to whether we are learning how to live in the world or whether we are simply remembering. Perhaps it's both. Maybe we're taking our human past and current knowledge to explore the future. Each generation passing along the torch towards a new horizon. Just a thought.

Never stop questioning.

Links!:
http://www.noetic.org/about/what-are-noetic-sciences/ - Noetic Science
http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id787.html -Weight of the Human Soul

Questioning the Majority

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2808374571100926940&hl=en#
-Self-confidence

A great deal of the time in these past few blogs I've stood by the optimistic idea that the majority knows best what it wants for itself. The entire time however there was always this nagging idea in the back of my mind that I was supporting an idea of conformity. A theory that the ideas of the whole should eclipse those of the individual. The video above is a small documentary on Socrates and the idea of self-confidence; how we should be hesitant to believe those in power simply because they appear to know what they are doing.

The video takes a look back at Socrates who encouraged questioning, not just his superiors, but anyone who would stop for a moment. Yes, he frustrated a great many people, but only because by asking someone a question like, "What is Justice?" the person gets the feeling that the asker knows the answer and is trying to show off. His questioning along with that demonstrated in the video demonstrated how people's beliefs tend to crumble when brought to question. The point of this wasn't to make Socrates seem smarter, but to encourage people to think for themselves about why they think what they think.

The secret ingredient is philosophers.

I recently ran into the infamous "Denny's Philosopher" with Kyler, who's basically this awesome waiter who sits and talks about philosophy with you while you eat. The experience just forces you to think about different things in your life; both the content of the talk and the moment itself. As I was trying to recount one of the topics we had discussed with a fellow employee at work she said "Well duh." and before I could respond I was kinda dumbstruck for a second.

What struck me wasn't her immediate acceptance of that one idea, but the fact that questioning one's beliefs shouldn't just happen because of a single moment. I'll admit that there's the traditional "near death" experience that causes one to question everything (like a push in the right direction), but in reality thinking through our beliefs shouldn't be an alien concept at all.

Socrates was all about every man/women putting real thought into why they live their lives the way they do. The video goes on to bless this ideal and I agree with the principle that it doesn't take a degree in philosophy to do so, nor one critical event. We all have the potential and should use it throughout our daily lives. In this light, perhaps I wasn't entirely wrong in my initial belief in the majority. If something is logical to us perhaps it can be right, but in the grand scheme of things my hope is that the majority is logical enough to think things through to see what is best. The important thing is to always try to think things through to ensure what you believe makes sense to you, not just because someone or many people says so.

It's vital to strike a balance though. Question everything in your life constantly and all you'll only ever be met with indecision in yourself. Be confident in what you believe, but don't be afraid to remind yourself why you think the way you do.

Never stop questioning (within reason).

The Political System

"Man is by nature a political animal."
                                                         -Aristotle

If politics is all about "power", then by saying man is a political animal by nature, we are saying we have an instinctual (reference to animals) drive for power and control. On the other hand though, Aristotle could be arguing the fact that we instinctively seek to form community, which in turn creates a government. It could really be either or even both. Ultimately however, Aristotle is saying that we have a primal urge to act in some political manner. The trick is defining precisely what politics truly is.

Politics: Activity or process by which we make decisions about who gets what, when and how.

That's all well and good, but how precisely do we create government so that it is most effective for us? As we discussed in class, it comes down to how we define humanity because that will provide the fundamental foundation on which we create a successful society. If our fundamental definition is one of biological significance, we would want a society that would allow us to best procreate and prosper. If we are artists/storytellers, then our laws should focus on individual rights and freedoms (expressions).

The problem is of course that we cannot label humanity under one particular quality. Rules encouraging one definition (freedom) may conflict with others that we find equally important (safety). Moreover we each have our own specific ideology, preconceived ideas about the world, so it's impossible to be objective. The main lesson we were taught from this was to essentially say, "Nice Try" to anyone who tries to define human nature.

The above quote illustrates how we are focused on politics in some way, but how are we supposed to arrange politics if no one form of government will ever perfectly fit our needs? There are plenty of theoretical concepts of the ideal government (a la communism), but they only seem to work on paper. Why are we so fixated on making a government/society work when it will apparently never be obtainable?

The reason why we do this searching is because we will always have some form of government. I feel it is impossible for a people to have a community without one. We have one in power even now, so although we may never find the perfect "fit" we must try to get as close as possible to best suit the needs of our people. To add to the challenge of defining humanity, we have to remember that the society on which it's based is also changing.

As we said in class, a corrupt government of many leaders during Aristotle and Plato's time was said to be a democracy. At the time however that was because the majority consisted of many farmers or "country bumpkins" with little education. Giving a vote to all the ignorant in their eyes was utter chaos. Today however that figure has been flipped, with child education becoming a public endeavor.

The world in which we view humanity is changing, so we must work to both fit humanity and the world in which we live into our system of government. Laws shouldn't remain in place just because they've "always been", but for their purpose. We should never assume that something must remain set in stone because in a world of becoming there is always room for improvement. Times change, laws must change to adapt.

Concepts and ideals one-hundred years ago (such as rules against African American people in society) no longer fit and were changed for the better. Politics should not be a rock, but a living, breathing creature. Fundamental ideas may be allowed to stay if their reasoning remains sound. It's true that not all change will be beneficial, however if one constantly stays the same, either in a government or one's personal life, they will never improve.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."                                                                                -Albert Einstein

Never stop questioning.

Stories and Politics

"The universe is made of stories, not atoms."
                                                    -Muriel Rukeyser

The building blocks of life.

I like this quote a lot. The story is a metaphor of change and progression (no examples come to mind of stories that are ever stuck in one place), so when applied to the universe we can see that it is capable of change in itself. This quality is further established by saying it is not made of atoms. What it is referring to in my eyes is not the tiny particles of matter, but physicality itself. It's a metaphor for a world constructed by immobile substance incapable of any alteration.

Just for the sake of noting, Mark in class had a different take on the subject by saying every element of the world is defined by a story. Atoms themselves have a story about how they came to be.

From what we talked about in class, stories define our world, and the large variety of stories illustrates the infinite possibilities of becoming. The stories that we are told the most have the most power, thus we attribute them to being (or at least as close as we can get). These are meta-narratives because they are big stories told to explain the world we live in.

How does this fit in with politics? Easy. The meta-narratives of the day are what constitutes as real, or being reality. The cool thing is that in english "real" comes from "regal" or pertaining to a king. The Spanish are much less subtle as "real" in Spanish means royal. The ideal King is one who reigns over everything he can see. What he cannot see is not royal, so thus not real.

It's definitely interesting, especially considering that the best way to keep power is to keep the stories told in your favour. The concerning factor behind this is that politicians will do anything to create and stay in this positive light as much as possible. Jean Cretien himself said that a good leader wins elections... nothing to do with moral character. The reason I dislike politics is due to the fact that you rarely seem to get a straight answer from politicians for the simple reason that not doing so is a more effective tactic. They use careful wording, with multiple interpretations so there's always a back-door.

I can agree my opinion seems cynical, however the existence of "The Prince" would say otherwise. It's essentially "How to be a Leader for Dummies" by Machiavelli in the 16th century. Featured inside are ideas like,

"Criminal acts do not show real virtue because crime lacks glory. The solution presented however is not to avoid crime, but to make sure crimes do not languish over ones whole career, but are done at a stroke. This, Machiavelli says, changes criminal virtue to virtue because it allows glory."

...The only problem with criminal acts is a lack of glory... so here's how to make it glory... wow. It's pretty sketchy and it also happens to be a novel carried around by many political figures. Now I'll admit I haven't read it myself, but just looking up chapter summaries will demonstrate shocking ideas, all aimed at staying in power.

So what can we do as a people? Be well versed in the issues. Rhetoric is a powerful tool in our world, especially since it is the medium our stories are told. When it comes to politics, the best thing we can do is to make educated choices and stand up for what we deem is right. As I've said before, sometimes a vote cast in ignorance is just as bad as not voting at all.

Never stop questioning.