I was doing my ballot research, and trying to decide which way I would go on our City Library initiative. Increase taxes to fund the libraries, and prevent closure and a diminishing of services?
I found the Denver Post's for and against articles on the subject, just to gain a small handle.
I visit the libraries regularly - I don't like the idea of purchasing every book I want to read, just those that I might want to read twice. And my children go through books like a worm through apples (okay, maybe not quite: They don't destroy the books!). Although having a large selection of books to read certainly saves me more than the projected $70 a year the tax hike will cost me, do I really want to pay for more library?
But what has really decided me to vote for the measure was the completely disingenuous screed against expanding the library: In the writer's words, technology is overcoming our need for a library. We don't need a library, we just need Amazon and Google, and all will be well.
Except: When I visit the library, the banks of computers that allow our residents to do research on the web are full, lines waiting. The modern library is about much more than just the books on its shelves: It provides research capabilities to those who don't have internet access at home. It provides inter-library loans of books and materials. It provides Google and much more to those who can't afford it. In short, it provides technology equitably to our residents.
And Mr. Golyansky misleads: It's $60 million over 5 years! Sure, while trivially true, It's actually just 12.5 million per year, which is just just under $35 per resident, and roughly $70-$90 per homeowner (based on our median home value). Those are the numbers that matter. Not $60 million. Another perspective: A city our size has an annual budget of $600 million - that's $3 billion over five years! Turns out $60 million is drop in the bucket (a 2% drop).
If the best the opposition can do is to mislead and act like all the library does is purchase books for its shelves (and ignore it's other services completely) - then they lose. At least for my vote. The city libraries are not caught in a technological time-warp - expanding those very technologies that Mr Golyansky wants is exactly why they must raise more revenue.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Jon Ronson and "Them:"
I just finished reading "Them: Adventures with Extremists" by Jon Ronson, and I have to confess that I was initially not sure what to make of it.
Immediately upon finishing, I was a little concerned that I had been hoodwinked: That what I was taking to be a book documentary was really a work of fiction. The closing two chapters had a surreal, out of place feel that didn't seem to fit. I had to look up all the principle players (and they all exist, including footage from a video documentary that Ronson shot while investigating the material.) So, the credibility of Ronson and the events portrayed restored, I returned to my ruminations about the book.
As opposed to stating a thesis and building evidence to support it, "Them:" follows much more the documentary style: The journalist attempts to fade into the background, and not project any of his views onto the raw reporting of the people and events. Through many of the chapters of the book, Ronson achieves this: Omar Bakri, Randy Weaver, Thom Robb, Ian Paisley are allowed to speak without interference.
But, the closing chapters upset this. Ronson visits the Bilderburg Group and the Bohemian Grove, both objects of the conspiracy theories held by many in the earlier chapters. It almost appears that Ronson is now going to point out how silly their theories are, or outright debunk them.
However, he just doesn't do that. Instead of hard evidence, he simply interjects his views onto the events unfolding before him, coloring his reporting. He does reveal the counterpoint view held by two "extremists" who accompany him. Who's view is correct?
And that's the problem. Throughout the book, we are invited to live with the extremists, to see them as people who maybe hold a different viewpoint, to confront their views neutrally, and perhaps learn a little about them. It could provide a good springboard for thinking about us and them, about the origins of beliefs, and the chaotic nature of all belief.
Then he tears this down. Suddenly his viewpoint appears, as if to say: You knew they were wrong all along, go ahead, let's mock them together. No supporting evidence that "we" are correct, that the viewpoint held by "them" is wrong. He closes in exasperation, as though to say there's no hope, and that we should be equally exasperated.
I am. Not with "them", but with Ronson.
Immediately upon finishing, I was a little concerned that I had been hoodwinked: That what I was taking to be a book documentary was really a work of fiction. The closing two chapters had a surreal, out of place feel that didn't seem to fit. I had to look up all the principle players (and they all exist, including footage from a video documentary that Ronson shot while investigating the material.) So, the credibility of Ronson and the events portrayed restored, I returned to my ruminations about the book.
As opposed to stating a thesis and building evidence to support it, "Them:" follows much more the documentary style: The journalist attempts to fade into the background, and not project any of his views onto the raw reporting of the people and events. Through many of the chapters of the book, Ronson achieves this: Omar Bakri, Randy Weaver, Thom Robb, Ian Paisley are allowed to speak without interference.
But, the closing chapters upset this. Ronson visits the Bilderburg Group and the Bohemian Grove, both objects of the conspiracy theories held by many in the earlier chapters. It almost appears that Ronson is now going to point out how silly their theories are, or outright debunk them.
However, he just doesn't do that. Instead of hard evidence, he simply interjects his views onto the events unfolding before him, coloring his reporting. He does reveal the counterpoint view held by two "extremists" who accompany him. Who's view is correct?
And that's the problem. Throughout the book, we are invited to live with the extremists, to see them as people who maybe hold a different viewpoint, to confront their views neutrally, and perhaps learn a little about them. It could provide a good springboard for thinking about us and them, about the origins of beliefs, and the chaotic nature of all belief.
Then he tears this down. Suddenly his viewpoint appears, as if to say: You knew they were wrong all along, go ahead, let's mock them together. No supporting evidence that "we" are correct, that the viewpoint held by "them" is wrong. He closes in exasperation, as though to say there's no hope, and that we should be equally exasperated.
I am. Not with "them", but with Ronson.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Verbs, Pinker, Foder, and Thought
Thanks to the Harry Potter series, we know what thoughts look like: Silvery strands of goo that can be pulled out of your ears for storage and later retrieval and play-back. But what are thoughts, really?
Undaunted, Steven Pinker tackles that subject in his book 'The Stuff of Thought'. Pinker is a linguist, and he approaches the subject through his research into how we use language, and what it looks like on a universal scale. (Early in the book he states that there is enough universality to languages that we don't actually think differently based on the language we use. I'm not proficient in enough languages to either verify or refute that claim, so we'll have to accept it for now.)
Pinker bases his observations on the constructs that appear in language, and how we (or more appropriately, children) learn and use their language. As an example, he points at that some verbs are very flexible: They can fit into either construct:
Load hay into the wagon.
Load the wagon with hay.
But other seemingly similar verbs (action) refuse:
Pour water into the glass.
*Pour the glass with water.
You have probably never been tempted to use the second form (unless, perhaps, if you are a poet.) What is astonishing to linguists the world over is how quickly we learn which verbs fit into which constructs (and Steven Pinker gives several more classes as examples) – and often, after some initial flubs as very young children, we are not tempted to mess them up, even when we encounter a new verb that we haven't known before!
Enter Jerry Foder. Another linguist / philosopher, he is convinced that there is an enormous amount of language structure built in – our dividing verbs (and nouns) into classes that pre-determine how they get used is innate: We don't have to be taught, our brains are pre-wired for those constructs and those verb classes – and maybe even those verbs! Foder belongs to the class of linguists described as Extreme Nativists.
Pinker disagrees with Foder, and the exposition of the book is putting forth his argument that we do indeed learn all this stuff, and the quantity of innate structure in our minds is much, much less. However, in a gentlemanly moment, Pinker gives a compliment to Foder by quoting Daniel Dennett: “If we've learned much and pushed new ground, it's by jumping on Jerry” - a take on the old adage that 'if I've seen farther, it's by standing on the shoulders of giants.' Pinker indicates that without Foder as a foil (and a very, very intelligent one, at that), his and others' research would not have gone as far or perhaps produced the same quality of hypothesis. Disagreement, yes, but respect.
As I was contemplating the information contained in the book, it became very clear to me why both hypotheses would exist: It is extremely difficult to tease apart cause and effect at this level. Do the children of musicians become musicians because there is a music gene that they've inherited (plausible), or because their milieu from the time they were born was musical (equally plausible)? The same for athletes, actors, public servants, etc. We can see the genetic results in our external forms – do we have long arms, a slender or stocky build, what is the ratio of our tibia to our femur – all things that certainly may suit or unsuit us for particular activities.
But we can't see the genetic differences in the internal aspects of our brains. Is there a gene that controls the degree of folding? The connections between the hemispheres? The size ratios of the various constituent parts? We universally learn to speak by the time we are three – instinct? Or learned? (And that's an impossible test: We can't ethically remove children from speakers and isolate them to see if they ever learn to speak...) Does our brain innately understand cause and effect, movement to/from or past, or do we learn these constructs that are reflected in our language? How do we tell? If we observe the same constructs, and the same avoidance's, do we learn not to pour the glass with water, or does it innately not make sense?
Recent research into other areas of environment vs innate ability keep astonishing us, mostly with how what we thought was innate is instead learned – and so Pinker may currently have the upper hand in this argument, but certainly not the last word. The rest of us are lucky, that, again in Dennett's words: Pinker and Foder are like trampolines that push back when challenged, and in the process of springing off each other, they push our understanding of, well, understanding.
Undaunted, Steven Pinker tackles that subject in his book 'The Stuff of Thought'. Pinker is a linguist, and he approaches the subject through his research into how we use language, and what it looks like on a universal scale. (Early in the book he states that there is enough universality to languages that we don't actually think differently based on the language we use. I'm not proficient in enough languages to either verify or refute that claim, so we'll have to accept it for now.)
Pinker bases his observations on the constructs that appear in language, and how we (or more appropriately, children) learn and use their language. As an example, he points at that some verbs are very flexible: They can fit into either construct:
Load hay into the wagon.
Load the wagon with hay.
But other seemingly similar verbs (action) refuse:
Pour water into the glass.
*Pour the glass with water.
You have probably never been tempted to use the second form (unless, perhaps, if you are a poet.) What is astonishing to linguists the world over is how quickly we learn which verbs fit into which constructs (and Steven Pinker gives several more classes as examples) – and often, after some initial flubs as very young children, we are not tempted to mess them up, even when we encounter a new verb that we haven't known before!
Enter Jerry Foder. Another linguist / philosopher, he is convinced that there is an enormous amount of language structure built in – our dividing verbs (and nouns) into classes that pre-determine how they get used is innate: We don't have to be taught, our brains are pre-wired for those constructs and those verb classes – and maybe even those verbs! Foder belongs to the class of linguists described as Extreme Nativists.
Pinker disagrees with Foder, and the exposition of the book is putting forth his argument that we do indeed learn all this stuff, and the quantity of innate structure in our minds is much, much less. However, in a gentlemanly moment, Pinker gives a compliment to Foder by quoting Daniel Dennett: “If we've learned much and pushed new ground, it's by jumping on Jerry” - a take on the old adage that 'if I've seen farther, it's by standing on the shoulders of giants.' Pinker indicates that without Foder as a foil (and a very, very intelligent one, at that), his and others' research would not have gone as far or perhaps produced the same quality of hypothesis. Disagreement, yes, but respect.
As I was contemplating the information contained in the book, it became very clear to me why both hypotheses would exist: It is extremely difficult to tease apart cause and effect at this level. Do the children of musicians become musicians because there is a music gene that they've inherited (plausible), or because their milieu from the time they were born was musical (equally plausible)? The same for athletes, actors, public servants, etc. We can see the genetic results in our external forms – do we have long arms, a slender or stocky build, what is the ratio of our tibia to our femur – all things that certainly may suit or unsuit us for particular activities.
But we can't see the genetic differences in the internal aspects of our brains. Is there a gene that controls the degree of folding? The connections between the hemispheres? The size ratios of the various constituent parts? We universally learn to speak by the time we are three – instinct? Or learned? (And that's an impossible test: We can't ethically remove children from speakers and isolate them to see if they ever learn to speak...) Does our brain innately understand cause and effect, movement to/from or past, or do we learn these constructs that are reflected in our language? How do we tell? If we observe the same constructs, and the same avoidance's, do we learn not to pour the glass with water, or does it innately not make sense?
Recent research into other areas of environment vs innate ability keep astonishing us, mostly with how what we thought was innate is instead learned – and so Pinker may currently have the upper hand in this argument, but certainly not the last word. The rest of us are lucky, that, again in Dennett's words: Pinker and Foder are like trampolines that push back when challenged, and in the process of springing off each other, they push our understanding of, well, understanding.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Intrinsic vs Extrinsic Rewards
So much of what we do is driven by extrinsic reward - do your homework to get good grades (and your parent's and teacher's praise), practice your skills (again, for praise and attentions), do your job (for the money). In a recent book club book, Outliers, by Malcom Gladwell, he pointed out that those who achieve the very highest levels of skill do so because they are able to replace extrinsic motivation for intrinsic (internal) motivation: They start doing the activity for the sheer pleasure that they derive. This internal motivation enables them to concentrate and practice for long periods - much longer than those who are just extrinsically motivated. And there is nothing like lots of extra practice to perfect a skill.
So, naturally, as parents, we want to provide motivations to our children that will ultimately lead to their developing intrinsic motivations. Unfortunately, most of what we know is to reward or bribe (Do this, and I'll give you something you want.)
I don't recall how I ran across her website, but Dr. Christine Carter has some good ideas driven by research on how that may be accomplished. And since a co-worker and I were speaking on this topic today, here is a link to her post on ways to motivate without extrinsic reward.
So, naturally, as parents, we want to provide motivations to our children that will ultimately lead to their developing intrinsic motivations. Unfortunately, most of what we know is to reward or bribe (Do this, and I'll give you something you want.)
I don't recall how I ran across her website, but Dr. Christine Carter has some good ideas driven by research on how that may be accomplished. And since a co-worker and I were speaking on this topic today, here is a link to her post on ways to motivate without extrinsic reward.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Peter Galbraith in the News
One of the towering figures of the 20th century Economics profession was John Kenneth Galbraith. He wrote prolifically, and looked at economics from often a different viewpoint - a very humane view that questioned whether the economy was helping everyone. His writing is accessible and enjoyable - not something every economics professor can pull off!
Interestingly, his children have also entered very public roles: James K. Galbraith as an economics professor at University of Texas at Austin, who speaks out prominently against economic inequality and war. And, his older son Peter, has been a high profile U.S. ambassador, to Croatia, East Timor, and most recently, Afghanistan.
Peter Galbraith is in the news, as he has just been recalled (fired) from his post in Afghanistan, following a dispute he had with the senior U.N. official there about the large scale election fraud that took place during the recent election that retained Hamid Kharzi in power.
Enough of a preamble: You can read his letter to the NY Times, and listen to an interview on NPR's On-Point.
Interestingly, his children have also entered very public roles: James K. Galbraith as an economics professor at University of Texas at Austin, who speaks out prominently against economic inequality and war. And, his older son Peter, has been a high profile U.S. ambassador, to Croatia, East Timor, and most recently, Afghanistan.
Peter Galbraith is in the news, as he has just been recalled (fired) from his post in Afghanistan, following a dispute he had with the senior U.N. official there about the large scale election fraud that took place during the recent election that retained Hamid Kharzi in power.
Enough of a preamble: You can read his letter to the NY Times, and listen to an interview on NPR's On-Point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)