So, last Democrazy post (which is here by the way), I complained how the entire process of asking the mob what the best decision is, is flawed.
Now today I'll be speaking about how Representative Democracies (the most common type in use today) are an even worse case.
So lets start with some basic background. A Representative Democracy is one where the people elect 'representatives' in order to take the decisions for them. So you have a parliament, or an important individual - and the people choose who gets the very important position of taking care of them.
Now this has a huge amount of problems, most of them stemming from the fact that the Representatives are human and may have ulterior motives. So lets start enumerating the problem shall we?
1. People are Sheep
This is a fundamental problem especially with political parties. You generally have a number of 'die-hard' voters who will always vote for a particular political party, even if the party leader was caught eating puppies and drinking the blood of orphans. This happens ALL the time and EVERYWHERE. For US readers think about "Red States" and "Blue States", for Maltese readers you should all know what I'm talking about.
Now this generally isn't much of a problem, these values even out and then its all up to the 'floating voters' to decide. However, this ends up forcing a two-party political system, which is horrible. Think about it, with many votes always guaranteed for a particular party, in certain cases, floating voters won't have enough number to get a seat for a member who isn't one of the parties. Malta has never had a parliamentary seat which wasn't given to one of the two main parties. Having two parties makes things stagnant and it always turns into "At least THEY'RE not in power".
2. Doing it for the vote
Alright, in theory its allright. You serve a term, and then if people liked what you did, you get more votes and get another term (or whatever). Unfortunately this then turns into a tactical decision to determine what gives you the most votes - and not by making the majority happen. Lets give an example. Hunting in Malta is all about shooting small birds as they fly over the island - we don't have any large game and you're not expected to eat what you shoot. Now its practiced by a subset of the population. However, the amount of people who find hunting offensive, brutal or just plain unsporting is larger than the amount of people who enjoy hunting. So you would expect that hunting is heavily regulated - since the will of the majority dictates it.
However, the hunting 'group' and their families and friends are worth quite a bit of votes, no politician wants to lose this amount of votes, so nobody will touch this issue with a standard 5 foot pole. There would be a net voting loss if hunting was regulated, as the people who think hunting is brutal are still going to vote for the party if it continues. Note I'm not making an argument against hunting here - I'm using it as an example of how 'tactical vote collecting' works.
3. Lobbying, Bribes and the Puppet Masters
I could talk about this topic until I turn blue in the face. Since these people take important decisions, its a good idea to target them, since if you get one of these people on your side, you can shift decisions and laws.
And its done (totally legally) through the use of lobbies. And in many cases, the lobbying will be all in favour of a small subset, and all against the general public. I can bring up tons upon tons of laws which only came into play because some large company wanted them to be implemented. Most overly-active copyright laws for example, animal testing for cosmetics still legal in Europe, the fact that the new Maltese Power-Station will pollute the crap out of the island...
4. They may have ulterior motives. This happens especially in countries with a large corporate presence. These people have a tendency to be rich, and so they buy stocks/shares in companies or in resources. Nobody wants their s/s to lose money, so better ensure that since you're in a position of power - you give little pushes to ensure that your money keeps growing.
5. They play dirty. I will give two examples of this - Secrecy and Riders.
Secrecy is pretty much censoring or withholding information which they know would cause an outcry (and loss of votes) if they became public. Tons of examples of this, wikileaks is one example of hiding information which can cause a ton of damage. And for the latter, the ACTA agreement is a perfect example of it. Few people knew what was going to be about exactly - simply because it had so many clauses which the public would hate if they knew about it. So better hide it away, then bully smaller countries to adopt it (yes that was the plan).
Riders are another example of a mess which is actually legal in certain countries. They work like this: Lets say you have an idea which will be shot down in parliament - lets say you want a law which "Forces Llamas to be shaved twice weekly". So, you wait until someone else is writing a bill for something important or time critical say - "Giving more money to the people in region X who have been hit by an earthquake". You know that this bill will pass quickly, and urgently, so you add your little clause to the main bill, even though it has nothing to do with llamas or shaving. However the main bill will have to pass, since its urgent and if its rejected you waste more time - so the whole thing passes, and you get your clause put in. No I am not joking about it, this childish act is actually legal in certain countries.
Meh. If you don't agree, feel free to discuss.
Llama
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Status Symbols
Imagine you have some leather, or leatherlike material. Not too expensive in small quantities. You give this leatherlike material to a person living in a third world country (could even be a child), and you ask him to produce a shoe from it. In fact you can have an entire bank of these workers churning out shoes - lowering costs.
How much will this shoe cost? The production costs are low, so you assume its worth very little indeed. Now lets add something to our shoe. Lets add the insignia for a very prestigious and expensive brand. Lets add the Alpaca Symbol to the shoe. It is now no longer a piece of cheap shoe-shaped material produced by kiddies in a third-world country, now its Alpaca Brand shoe! And therefore worth 50-150 euros depending on what 'magical technology' it's using.
So the difference between "5 euro shoe you bought at a flea market" and "150 euro shoe which you bought at a specialty store" isn't that one was technologically crafted, or hand made in a traditional method by some rare people. Its simply the brand. When globalisation was still spreading its evil tentacles around the globe, large companies would buy off smaller 'industries' and set them to work producing their goods.
In fact, the reason we'd buy "Alpaca Brand" instead of any other brand is because it's expensive. And its expensive because people buy it because it's expensive. If AlpacaBrand reduced its prices, it would lose its 'specialness' and therefore stop being so wanted. The reason people buy it is simply because not everyone can get it. You're paying for the 'status' of having something not everyone can have.
Lets take another example. You have a yellow-coloured substance which comes from the ground. It is chemically slightly interesting, it's not very reactive and it has a good conductivity. However we wear it on our fingers, around our necks. And the only reason that we do so is because its rare. We're not wearing it because we like yellow (we could buy paint for that), we're not wearing it for the conductivity or to bombard it with alpha particles. We do so because we have an object that few other people can afford.
To give a brilliant example of this phenomenon. Aluminium. Once upon a time it was very very hard to produce, and was therefore rare. The apex of the Washington monument has Alumninium in it, so does the statue on the tip of Piccadilly circus. It wasn't chosen because of its amazing scientific properties - it was chosen because it was expensive.
Then a cheap and easy way of obtaining this magical substance was discovered - and now we make drinking cans from it. We no longer show it off.
Now does this make any sense? We like to show off our superiority by wasting money and resources to get items which are either useless, or as useful as an exact same item without the branding. But we just feel the need to show off our superiority by showing our very poor buying habits.
And we wonder why we have poor people and the economy is unfair.
ADDED: I have stumbled upon a technical word for this. Velben Goods.
The Llama
How much will this shoe cost? The production costs are low, so you assume its worth very little indeed. Now lets add something to our shoe. Lets add the insignia for a very prestigious and expensive brand. Lets add the Alpaca Symbol to the shoe. It is now no longer a piece of cheap shoe-shaped material produced by kiddies in a third-world country, now its Alpaca Brand shoe! And therefore worth 50-150 euros depending on what 'magical technology' it's using.
So the difference between "5 euro shoe you bought at a flea market" and "150 euro shoe which you bought at a specialty store" isn't that one was technologically crafted, or hand made in a traditional method by some rare people. Its simply the brand. When globalisation was still spreading its evil tentacles around the globe, large companies would buy off smaller 'industries' and set them to work producing their goods.
In fact, the reason we'd buy "Alpaca Brand" instead of any other brand is because it's expensive. And its expensive because people buy it because it's expensive. If AlpacaBrand reduced its prices, it would lose its 'specialness' and therefore stop being so wanted. The reason people buy it is simply because not everyone can get it. You're paying for the 'status' of having something not everyone can have.
Lets take another example. You have a yellow-coloured substance which comes from the ground. It is chemically slightly interesting, it's not very reactive and it has a good conductivity. However we wear it on our fingers, around our necks. And the only reason that we do so is because its rare. We're not wearing it because we like yellow (we could buy paint for that), we're not wearing it for the conductivity or to bombard it with alpha particles. We do so because we have an object that few other people can afford.
To give a brilliant example of this phenomenon. Aluminium. Once upon a time it was very very hard to produce, and was therefore rare. The apex of the Washington monument has Alumninium in it, so does the statue on the tip of Piccadilly circus. It wasn't chosen because of its amazing scientific properties - it was chosen because it was expensive.
Then a cheap and easy way of obtaining this magical substance was discovered - and now we make drinking cans from it. We no longer show it off.
Now does this make any sense? We like to show off our superiority by wasting money and resources to get items which are either useless, or as useful as an exact same item without the branding. But we just feel the need to show off our superiority by showing our very poor buying habits.
And we wonder why we have poor people and the economy is unfair.
ADDED: I have stumbled upon a technical word for this. Velben Goods.
The Llama
Monday, February 14, 2011
Love
Well since today is valentine's day, and since Ian did remind me of my ideas about this (by claiming love does not follow a logical pattern), I will be blogging about this topic now.
Many people make claims that love can't really be defined, that you must 'feel it in your heart' (by extension, that its an emotion), and that it does not follow a logical process. So time to prove those people wrong.
So first step would be defining it, so that we may make conclusions upon it.
So, I will be defining love as:
"A measure of the ratio between what X a person is willing to lose, in order for another person to gain Y." Obviously X and Y both need to be 'measured' by some sort of pseudo-metric, which will be dependent on the situation and the person in question.
The point however remains that if A loves B, then A is willing to lose some sort of advantage to surviving/superiority in life, in order to give this advantage to someone else.
This definition can easily be extended for any sort of love (love for a country, love for a philosophy), and it can easily be extended to hatred (losing something to give someone else a disadvantage). Now if you have any problems, or mismatches with particular exemplars, please feel free to comment. Friendship isn't really love, its symbiosis, as you are expecting something in return.
Having said that, lets see the point of love. Its really quite simple actually. You recognise a person as being worthy of your love - generally you will love someone who is 'superior' to you, and by doing so, you are increasing their chance of survival at the cost of your own. (Remember, these things are primitive). If a person is loved by multiple people, then this person will have more chance of survival. If a person is rather inferior, nobody will ever love them - less chance of survival.
Of course, the mating part is the icing on the cake - remember, nature does not bother with individuals, it only cares about the species. If a superior creature can survive for as long as possible, and spread their genes - evolution will work faster. Hooray for the Inductive Bias of Nature!
On a personal note, I would like to declare my love for my Lady Gabriella and wish her a happy Valentine's Day.
The Llama
Many people make claims that love can't really be defined, that you must 'feel it in your heart' (by extension, that its an emotion), and that it does not follow a logical process. So time to prove those people wrong.
So first step would be defining it, so that we may make conclusions upon it.
So, I will be defining love as:
"A measure of the ratio between what X a person is willing to lose, in order for another person to gain Y." Obviously X and Y both need to be 'measured' by some sort of pseudo-metric, which will be dependent on the situation and the person in question.
The point however remains that if A loves B, then A is willing to lose some sort of advantage to surviving/superiority in life, in order to give this advantage to someone else.
This definition can easily be extended for any sort of love (love for a country, love for a philosophy), and it can easily be extended to hatred (losing something to give someone else a disadvantage). Now if you have any problems, or mismatches with particular exemplars, please feel free to comment. Friendship isn't really love, its symbiosis, as you are expecting something in return.
Having said that, lets see the point of love. Its really quite simple actually. You recognise a person as being worthy of your love - generally you will love someone who is 'superior' to you, and by doing so, you are increasing their chance of survival at the cost of your own. (Remember, these things are primitive). If a person is loved by multiple people, then this person will have more chance of survival. If a person is rather inferior, nobody will ever love them - less chance of survival.
Of course, the mating part is the icing on the cake - remember, nature does not bother with individuals, it only cares about the species. If a superior creature can survive for as long as possible, and spread their genes - evolution will work faster. Hooray for the Inductive Bias of Nature!
On a personal note, I would like to declare my love for my Lady Gabriella and wish her a happy Valentine's Day.
The Llama
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Religion
Yes, I'm going to tackle this hotly-debated topic now.
The impression I'm getting on the internet is that it seems to be commonplace to bash people on their religious choices (if you're atheist), and to proclaim death, damnation and some holy-text quotes if you're not. The amount of comments on the Times' website which liken the divorce debate to A fight between God and Satan, and "Fight the good fight" is rather statistically improbable.
So, lets start by analysing the main purposes of religion:
1. To supply hope to individuals. (Believe in an afterlife, Believe that someone is watching over you, Prayer...)
2. To supply a moral code, both for individuals and groups of people
3. To attempt to explain certain phenomena
4. To extend and conserve culture.
5. To prove itself.
Now most of the fire that religion takes are about #3. Since religions were founded in years past, the level of scientific knowledge is remnant of the people who wrote it at the time. So when Greek people saw a bunch of moving dots in the sky, they called them "Wanderers" and believed them to be the gods moving around in chariots. People saw the world as it is and how perfectly it works, and concluded that some sentient being did it.
Is there proof for it? Nope. Is it scientifically incorrect? Yes. The method used is unscientific. However, does this mean that everything in religion should be discounted? Should religion itself be replaced by science?
Probably not - due to reasons 1 and 2 (and maybe 4). So I'll just state this -
If a person is happy believing that he will get eternal paradise if he gives charity - then let him. He'll make the world better.
If a person believes that if he preys off others he will be tortured by having animals eat his flesh for 6.63552E15 years, then let him. He'll make himself better.
If a person believes that loving your neighbor means you get to spend eternity with his Deity - then let him. Its not like he's harming anyone.
Of course there are levels. There are extremists. There are people who bomb airports for religion, there are people who thank God when tsunamis kill people because of the homosexuals they killed. But don't let that ruin anything. Its true, religion has killed people. But so have other things.
The guy who bombed the Russian Airport? Not religious.
The killing of millions of jews over a few years? Not really religious either.
The Israel-Palestine debate? Could call it religious.. I'd rather call it cultural.
Trillions spent on 'bringing democracy' to a country with 'WMDs' ? Not religious. The constant car and suicide bombings ? Not religious either.
Most extremism leads to this. Not just religion. 21% of the world's population is Muslim. Are all of them terrorists? Nope. So why is it that certain countries link Muslims to Terrorism?
In summary, if you're happy believing in God, enjoy it. If you're not happy not believing in anything, enjoy it. But don't ruin it for anyone else. This goes both ways.
The Llama
The impression I'm getting on the internet is that it seems to be commonplace to bash people on their religious choices (if you're atheist), and to proclaim death, damnation and some holy-text quotes if you're not. The amount of comments on the Times' website which liken the divorce debate to A fight between God and Satan, and "Fight the good fight" is rather statistically improbable.
So, lets start by analysing the main purposes of religion:
1. To supply hope to individuals. (Believe in an afterlife, Believe that someone is watching over you, Prayer...)
2. To supply a moral code, both for individuals and groups of people
3. To attempt to explain certain phenomena
4. To extend and conserve culture.
5. To prove itself.
Now most of the fire that religion takes are about #3. Since religions were founded in years past, the level of scientific knowledge is remnant of the people who wrote it at the time. So when Greek people saw a bunch of moving dots in the sky, they called them "Wanderers" and believed them to be the gods moving around in chariots. People saw the world as it is and how perfectly it works, and concluded that some sentient being did it.
Is there proof for it? Nope. Is it scientifically incorrect? Yes. The method used is unscientific. However, does this mean that everything in religion should be discounted? Should religion itself be replaced by science?
Probably not - due to reasons 1 and 2 (and maybe 4). So I'll just state this -
If a person is happy believing that he will get eternal paradise if he gives charity - then let him. He'll make the world better.
If a person believes that if he preys off others he will be tortured by having animals eat his flesh for 6.63552E15 years, then let him. He'll make himself better.
If a person believes that loving your neighbor means you get to spend eternity with his Deity - then let him. Its not like he's harming anyone.
Of course there are levels. There are extremists. There are people who bomb airports for religion, there are people who thank God when tsunamis kill people because of the homosexuals they killed. But don't let that ruin anything. Its true, religion has killed people. But so have other things.
The guy who bombed the Russian Airport? Not religious.
The killing of millions of jews over a few years? Not really religious either.
The Israel-Palestine debate? Could call it religious.. I'd rather call it cultural.
Trillions spent on 'bringing democracy' to a country with 'WMDs' ? Not religious. The constant car and suicide bombings ? Not religious either.
Most extremism leads to this. Not just religion. 21% of the world's population is Muslim. Are all of them terrorists? Nope. So why is it that certain countries link Muslims to Terrorism?
In summary, if you're happy believing in God, enjoy it. If you're not happy not believing in anything, enjoy it. But don't ruin it for anyone else. This goes both ways.
The Llama
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Running low on patents
So, today im going to be talking about patents. I wrote this on Tabby, so please excuse any minor mistakes.
So. Patents. Let's start off by defining what they are exactly. To put it simply - when you invent something, you may tell the government, and nobody else may invent it until the patent expires. Which is for a few years.
There are rules to what's going on of course. You can't patent stuff which is ' obvious' according to some metric. Also if someone does infringe on your patent, you get to sue. Where can this go wrong eh?
So here's how it works in real life. Large companies collect patents like WMDs. Some of these patents are vague- others are just plain stupid. Doesn't matter. You go about your usual business, inevitably hitting a few competitors patents too. But nobody sues. It's like a cold war of sorts. MAD. However if a petty small company peeks it's head in, then you sue. Regardless of whether the patent is vague, or it's for something silly like floating tutorial arrows (not joking about that one). Little company can't defend itself well and dies.
Another use is for strategic bombing. Amazon holds the patent for 1 click shopping. So when a competitor used it, they sued right before the peak season.
Another example would be Oracle suing Google over Android. Anyone thinks they bought Sun to advance FOSS? Hah.
So, how to defend oneself against this government enforced corporate bullying? You can either prove that the patent shouldn't have been given in the first place - costing you legal fees. Or you can get into the game. Making the world worse for everyone.
It's undoubtedly worse with software, where anyone can have an idea- and lock down an industry which is build over improving ideas. And since not everyone at the office happens to be Einstein , crap passes through.
Also, with a large educated population and the internet, it's likely someone thought of a different implementation of the same solution. The product itself is protected by other laws. In fact, places where multiple competitors show off their own implementation is where the consumer gains the most.
So bother your nearest representative to look beyond his fat corporate bribe and remove them. Situation will only get worse until then.
The llama
So. Patents. Let's start off by defining what they are exactly. To put it simply - when you invent something, you may tell the government, and nobody else may invent it until the patent expires. Which is for a few years.
There are rules to what's going on of course. You can't patent stuff which is ' obvious' according to some metric. Also if someone does infringe on your patent, you get to sue. Where can this go wrong eh?
So here's how it works in real life. Large companies collect patents like WMDs. Some of these patents are vague- others are just plain stupid. Doesn't matter. You go about your usual business, inevitably hitting a few competitors patents too. But nobody sues. It's like a cold war of sorts. MAD. However if a petty small company peeks it's head in, then you sue. Regardless of whether the patent is vague, or it's for something silly like floating tutorial arrows (not joking about that one). Little company can't defend itself well and dies.
Another use is for strategic bombing. Amazon holds the patent for 1 click shopping. So when a competitor used it, they sued right before the peak season.
Another example would be Oracle suing Google over Android. Anyone thinks they bought Sun to advance FOSS? Hah.
So, how to defend oneself against this government enforced corporate bullying? You can either prove that the patent shouldn't have been given in the first place - costing you legal fees. Or you can get into the game. Making the world worse for everyone.
It's undoubtedly worse with software, where anyone can have an idea- and lock down an industry which is build over improving ideas. And since not everyone at the office happens to be Einstein , crap passes through.
Also, with a large educated population and the internet, it's likely someone thought of a different implementation of the same solution. The product itself is protected by other laws. In fact, places where multiple competitors show off their own implementation is where the consumer gains the most.
So bother your nearest representative to look beyond his fat corporate bribe and remove them. Situation will only get worse until then.
The llama
Valentine's Day!
So, apparently it's St Valentine's day soon. I know this interesting fact because special offers, competitions and the like have been spammed at me recently.
So, lets see. St Valentine.. I wonder who he was. A quick Wikipedia search reveals that there were multiple Saints called St Valentine, and apparently we don't know much about them.
Apparently one of them was beaten, stoned and had his head cut off for trying to convert the Emperor. Lets make out!
To be fair, this day was traditionally reserved for fertility celebrations - such as Lupercalia, where we used to run around naked and whip women with leather whips to make them fertile. Load of fun and games.
So how did it turn from that into a day where you're forced to buy:
1. A card
2. Flowers
3. Some very expensive item like a weekend break, massage or whatever?
4. Chocolates
5. Mobile phones (Yes, I received an email from my Mobile Provider.. go figure)
I am basing this impression based on the ton of spam on my Facebook wall.
I'm sure it went something like this:
"Person A: People are celebrating this feast of love - which is purely spiritual and not materialist in any way"
"Corporate Exec: Can we sell crap to them?"
"Corporate Underling: I'm on it!"
And as a result, now we have to dish out more money to help the economy. Hooray.
If you truly love your partner, then you don't need a bunch of large companies tell you what, and when, you should celebrate this love. If you want to buy roses for your lass on Pi Day instead, or buy her a video camera on talk like a pirate day, then do so.
Women like it when you do different things and surprise them. Or so I'm told.
Llama
So, lets see. St Valentine.. I wonder who he was. A quick Wikipedia search reveals that there were multiple Saints called St Valentine, and apparently we don't know much about them.
Apparently one of them was beaten, stoned and had his head cut off for trying to convert the Emperor. Lets make out!
To be fair, this day was traditionally reserved for fertility celebrations - such as Lupercalia, where we used to run around naked and whip women with leather whips to make them fertile. Load of fun and games.
So how did it turn from that into a day where you're forced to buy:
1. A card
2. Flowers
3. Some very expensive item like a weekend break, massage or whatever?
4. Chocolates
5. Mobile phones (Yes, I received an email from my Mobile Provider.. go figure)
I am basing this impression based on the ton of spam on my Facebook wall.
I'm sure it went something like this:
"Person A: People are celebrating this feast of love - which is purely spiritual and not materialist in any way"
"Corporate Exec: Can we sell crap to them?"
"Corporate Underling: I'm on it!"
And as a result, now we have to dish out more money to help the economy. Hooray.
If you truly love your partner, then you don't need a bunch of large companies tell you what, and when, you should celebrate this love. If you want to buy roses for your lass on Pi Day instead, or buy her a video camera on talk like a pirate day, then do so.
Women like it when you do different things and surprise them. Or so I'm told.
Llama
Monday, February 7, 2011
We don't need no science!
Going hand in hand with last time's blog...
We don't need no science - because we all know everything about everything - and our belief is more than enough to replace scientific rigor. Lets give an example:
Last month it was revealed that the research performed which linked Vaccines to Autism was a giant scam. Alright, it was 'scientific' and done by a scientist - and I have no idea who peer reviewed it but they should be tossed off a cliff. Now this paper started a few movements which aimed to ban vaccinations and stuff like that.
Aside from being immensely stupid (would you rather your kid dies instead of becomes autistic?) - now that it was revealed it was a scam - some of these movements are still going. Don't you think we should let the medical community decide what is good and bad for us? They are experts in the field.
This extends to tons of things - especially in the 'beauty' industry. You have everything from devices to stab holes into you to make your skin more soft - to balms based on snails to help regenerate your skin, to diet products based on this magical X, to eating ginger to cure illnesses...
Its a huge huge huge industry which makes billions each year, and yet is there a scientific basis to all of it? Of course not. But we don't need no science, it gets in the way of our magical 'belief-based-systems'.
The Llama
We don't need no science - because we all know everything about everything - and our belief is more than enough to replace scientific rigor. Lets give an example:
Last month it was revealed that the research performed which linked Vaccines to Autism was a giant scam. Alright, it was 'scientific' and done by a scientist - and I have no idea who peer reviewed it but they should be tossed off a cliff. Now this paper started a few movements which aimed to ban vaccinations and stuff like that.
Aside from being immensely stupid (would you rather your kid dies instead of becomes autistic?) - now that it was revealed it was a scam - some of these movements are still going. Don't you think we should let the medical community decide what is good and bad for us? They are experts in the field.
This extends to tons of things - especially in the 'beauty' industry. You have everything from devices to stab holes into you to make your skin more soft - to balms based on snails to help regenerate your skin, to diet products based on this magical X, to eating ginger to cure illnesses...
Its a huge huge huge industry which makes billions each year, and yet is there a scientific basis to all of it? Of course not. But we don't need no science, it gets in the way of our magical 'belief-based-systems'.
The Llama
Friday, February 4, 2011
Low on Science
(For the duration of this blog, I will be assuming that "Technology" is a subset of "Science". I will use "Scientist" to refer to both)
There was an article a few weeks ago (2?) that America was falling back on science, because schoolchildren apparently don't like science very much. Now generally articles like this will have comments blaming:
1. The Government for not putting enough funding bla bla bla
2. The Education System
3. Kids these days with their laziness, and their online RPGs
4. Maths is too hard :(
But really the answer is amazingly obvious. Kids don't want to be scientists. And its not because all those letters and numbers are too hard, its because:
1. Silly Stereotypes
2. Lack of Perceived Success
Lets start with 1
When you think "Scientist" what do you think? Some boffin with crazy hair wearing a white coat.
What about a young kid who's good at maths? Those are 'nerds' - they're young kids with large glasses, braces, speech impediments, they are always prim and proper, never speak to members of opposite sex and have no social life.
Nobody wants to be like that. We want to be the cool Jocks who scores the winning [somePartOfGame]. We want to be the popular overly made up chick who has a line of men trying to woo her. We want to be the cool guys with the leather jackets who fix things by hitting them.
The irony of course is that high intelligence is one of the things which will bring you the ladies in real life (can you gu€$$ the rest?)
Now lets deal with number 2. People want to be successful in life. Measuring success is difficult. However in general the two main factors are popularity and money.
Which section of the market appears to get the most success? Its the Entertainment industry of course. People want to be these demi-gods. They don't want to be that boffin we mentioned earlier.
This is society's fault of course. We are more interested in [FilmStarX's] new hairstyle instead of the latest mathematical discovery.
Lets play a little game to prove my point shall we ?
Grab a piece of paper and divide it into two. Start with entertainment [this includes Sports]. Write the name of a famous person who has to do with the entertainment sector and an example of what he or she did.
Then write the name of someone famous in Science or Technology, and an example of what he or she did.
Lets define the "Famous" premetric threshold as "has their own wikipedia page".
Lets see how far you go
Llama
There was an article a few weeks ago (2?) that America was falling back on science, because schoolchildren apparently don't like science very much. Now generally articles like this will have comments blaming:
1. The Government for not putting enough funding bla bla bla
2. The Education System
3. Kids these days with their laziness, and their online RPGs
4. Maths is too hard :(
But really the answer is amazingly obvious. Kids don't want to be scientists. And its not because all those letters and numbers are too hard, its because:
1. Silly Stereotypes
2. Lack of Perceived Success
Lets start with 1
When you think "Scientist" what do you think? Some boffin with crazy hair wearing a white coat.
What about a young kid who's good at maths? Those are 'nerds' - they're young kids with large glasses, braces, speech impediments, they are always prim and proper, never speak to members of opposite sex and have no social life.
Nobody wants to be like that. We want to be the cool Jocks who scores the winning [somePartOfGame]. We want to be the popular overly made up chick who has a line of men trying to woo her. We want to be the cool guys with the leather jackets who fix things by hitting them.
The irony of course is that high intelligence is one of the things which will bring you the ladies in real life (can you gu€$$ the rest?)
Now lets deal with number 2. People want to be successful in life. Measuring success is difficult. However in general the two main factors are popularity and money.
Which section of the market appears to get the most success? Its the Entertainment industry of course. People want to be these demi-gods. They don't want to be that boffin we mentioned earlier.
This is society's fault of course. We are more interested in [FilmStarX's] new hairstyle instead of the latest mathematical discovery.
Lets play a little game to prove my point shall we ?
Grab a piece of paper and divide it into two. Start with entertainment [this includes Sports]. Write the name of a famous person who has to do with the entertainment sector and an example of what he or she did.
Then write the name of someone famous in Science or Technology, and an example of what he or she did.
Lets define the "Famous" premetric threshold as "has their own wikipedia page".
Lets see how far you go
Llama
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Democrazy
I wish I could take credit for the name, but alas, it is simply one which I picked up from the Illarion forums.
So, in case you're not sharp enough, the title is a play on the terms Democracy and crazy. Yep its an anti-democracy blog. But how could one be against democracy? Its the best thing since sliced bread.
For the purpose of this blog, I will assume a non-representative democracy. This way we take out the human factor, bribes, lobbies and other effects which work on human leaders.
To demonstrate what exactly is wrong, I will use an example. Let us say that in a society there is referendum on whether GM foods should be banned. The society will be divided into these sets (which are non mutually exclusive, but are complete).
1. People who don't care. These people will either not vote, or vote randomly. Useless.
2. People who are driven through politics. This is popular in Malta. One party says one thing, the other party says the other. Useless.
3. People who have wrong impressions of the topic. This could be from various reasons. They simply do not know what GM foods are, and have no idea about the effect of GM foods on humans, and on the economy. Useless.
4. People directed by the media. This is popular in the U$A. The GM food companies will openly and subvertly spam "GM food is good for you! 9 out of 10 people wearing white coats agree!". Useless
5. People who know about the topic. These people have researched and are able to take a good decision. Useful.
6. Domain experts. These are scientists who have worked in the field, have performed experiments and know all there is about GM foods. Very Useful.
7. Traditionalists, Liberalists or other hard-headed group. STICK IT TO THE MAN! THE MAN WANTS TO DECIDE WHAT WE CAN OR CAN'T EAT!!!11one. Useless.
In an ideal world - to take an informed decision, you need information. The sets 5 and 6 will be generally the best groups to take a decision - but will be the smallest. Good going.
So the decision is not taken by people who actually know what's going on, but by the masses who don't. The scientist who has worked his life in the field, has the exact same vote on this (and other topics) as Pietru the wall painter.
-
Another problem with Democracy is that it scales horribly. In the ideal working case it would be that a number of people 5...6? Have a problem, discuss between them and vote. Works. At worst, you have 2 or 3 people who don't really agree.
Try the same in a large country. The US has upwards of 300 million people living there. At worst you have 150 million people who don't agree.
-
The solution is simple. If we want to keep our tradition of letting the people's voices be heard, at least filter out the noise. Put prerequisites on voting. Only domain experts should be allowed to vote in issues. Perhaps, to increase the number, add also people who have read the literature of both sides and are smart enough to take a logical decision. Don't leave it in the hands of the masses - that's what causes these messes.
The Llama
So, in case you're not sharp enough, the title is a play on the terms Democracy and crazy. Yep its an anti-democracy blog. But how could one be against democracy? Its the best thing since sliced bread.
For the purpose of this blog, I will assume a non-representative democracy. This way we take out the human factor, bribes, lobbies and other effects which work on human leaders.
To demonstrate what exactly is wrong, I will use an example. Let us say that in a society there is referendum on whether GM foods should be banned. The society will be divided into these sets (which are non mutually exclusive, but are complete).
1. People who don't care. These people will either not vote, or vote randomly. Useless.
2. People who are driven through politics. This is popular in Malta. One party says one thing, the other party says the other. Useless.
3. People who have wrong impressions of the topic. This could be from various reasons. They simply do not know what GM foods are, and have no idea about the effect of GM foods on humans, and on the economy. Useless.
4. People directed by the media. This is popular in the U$A. The GM food companies will openly and subvertly spam "GM food is good for you! 9 out of 10 people wearing white coats agree!". Useless
5. People who know about the topic. These people have researched and are able to take a good decision. Useful.
6. Domain experts. These are scientists who have worked in the field, have performed experiments and know all there is about GM foods. Very Useful.
7. Traditionalists, Liberalists or other hard-headed group. STICK IT TO THE MAN! THE MAN WANTS TO DECIDE WHAT WE CAN OR CAN'T EAT!!!11one. Useless.
In an ideal world - to take an informed decision, you need information. The sets 5 and 6 will be generally the best groups to take a decision - but will be the smallest. Good going.
So the decision is not taken by people who actually know what's going on, but by the masses who don't. The scientist who has worked his life in the field, has the exact same vote on this (and other topics) as Pietru the wall painter.
-
Another problem with Democracy is that it scales horribly. In the ideal working case it would be that a number of people 5...6? Have a problem, discuss between them and vote. Works. At worst, you have 2 or 3 people who don't really agree.
Try the same in a large country. The US has upwards of 300 million people living there. At worst you have 150 million people who don't agree.
-
The solution is simple. If we want to keep our tradition of letting the people's voices be heard, at least filter out the noise. Put prerequisites on voting. Only domain experts should be allowed to vote in issues. Perhaps, to increase the number, add also people who have read the literature of both sides and are smart enough to take a logical decision. Don't leave it in the hands of the masses - that's what causes these messes.
The Llama
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)