Thursday May 26th 2005

I sometimes wonder why I am ever dissatisfied with my existence. It is not that I am displeased in general, rather quite the opposite. It sounds vain, but I truly believe that my life is very blessed. I could argue for it, but this is not presently my point. The question is, given that I firmly believe I live a wonderful life, why am I still regularly frustrated with various aspects of it? While it seems initially counter-intuitive, I think there are several good reasons for this quasi-incongruence. On one hand, the fact that life is good now does not mean it could not get better in many ways. Also, while there are many objective ways in which my life could be better, but we tend to pay less attention to the flaws when making an overall assessment of our lives (one should not lament one's lacks in the face of much greater fortune). Most important, however, is that doing the opposite and never contemplating the inadequacies would easily lead one to being complacent.

I am sometimes too critical of people close to me, especially if I believe they have great potential. It originates from a desire to see them succeed and utilize their abilities, but one must be careful not to apply pressure and expectations overzealously. I believe some "modern parenting" have taken this too far, to the point where they shun placing expectations entirely. I think this is unfortunate, not only because expectations can be a motivating factor (and a yardstick) but also because they are a reality of our world that we ought to be comfortable with.

Quote of the day: "With great power comes great responsibility." Ben Parker from Spider-Man

Wednesday May 25th 2005

I am increasingly convinced that debating politics is almost always an utter waste of time. I was reminded of this while visiting my politically active friends in Norway. People are entrenched in their beliefs and unwilling to budge. Partisanship engulfs the American two-party political scene, but in many ways it is worse in parliamentary states. I suggest we heed Hobbes' and Plato's call and anoint a world dictator with absolute power (I nominate myself). At the very least we'd get rid of debates that revolve around the pride of the participants much more than the issue at hand. I love debating, but even I have my limits!

We are unable to view ourselves objectively in many ways. What I am specifically referring to now is our inability to recognize certain character traits in ourselves. I have, for example, been told quite a few times that I can be flirtatious. While I don't personally associate with this description, my logical side must accept it on some level when the label has been put on me by enough external parties. My conceited side would like to point that 'flirtatious' is a difficult trait to recognize, however, as its distinction with 'charming' can be hazy. As long as people don't bring this up as a criticism, I will assume I'm on safe ground. :-P

Quote of the day: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill

Monday May 16th 2005

Sometimes I can clearly hear the voice of people who have passed away but were very close to me. It is probably related to the previously discussed associative nature of memory (5/11), as these emotions often occur in situations where these people would've given me advice in the past (i.e. a type of déjà vu). There are times, however, where it is unclear why a certain situation conjures up the memory of a specific person. I have, for example, thought of my grandfather in a couple of relationship-related situations, but he never advised me on such matters. The "voice in my head" speaks with eerie conviction. Given that the voice says roughly "follow your heart, give it your all, and leave nothing to chance," I have been content with obeying it without contemplating its origins much further. I obviously do not believe this is supernatural whatsoever, but rather speaks to the depth of the bond between two people. That is, when you know someone extremely well, you can sometimes anticipate their responses to certain stimuli. As I have said before, I do not believe debunking mysticism with this type of rationalism makes the underlying emotion/phenomena any less heartwarming.

I am less forceful and idealist in social gatherings than I used to be, which sometimes is perceived as being reserved or perhaps disinterested. Part of the explanation is that I feel less of a need to impose my point of view - e.g. why object to a point if you know from experience that it will not alter any opinions. While I am annoyed by those who make their opinions known in every conversation, I feel veering to the other extreme is also unfortunate since one is easily interpreted as being aloof. I often rely on good friends (those with some amount of "cocktail party talents," vis-à-vis 4/10) to alleviate the detached impression, but this is certainly not an ideal or sustainable approach. It is a peculiar conundrum when a set of good beliefs logically may induce a less fortunate side-effect.

Link of the day: Star Wars
Quote of the day: "Marry someone you can talk to, because that is ultimately what will remain." (roughly) unknown origin

Sunday May 15th 2005

What is the purpose of jealousy? Despite my efforts to the contrary, I am sometimes hampered by this emotion. I have wondered in the past whether it is related to protective instincts, but I think 'protective' is used as a favorable substitute for 'possessive' in this context. Jealousy is an emotion generally associated with a relationship (though it is not exclusive to this domain), and thus one could hypothesize that it only rears its ugly head where there is not complete trust. Yet it is clearly not this cut-and-dry, however, as most of us have experienced the emotion when we logically have no good reason for it. It is an area where many of us could use some improvement - if you cannot trust those closest to you, then who can you trust?

Why have we evolved to have a pubescent period of complete hormonal chaos? [It is interesting how, despite my uninformed way of phrasing the question, the underlying observation seems like a powerful argument a divine designer.] At times I am dumbfounded as to how our species is able to survive this phase. While contemplating this issue, a friend (Sarah Nguyen) pointed out that it was in fact one of the highest causes of death amongst adolescents. Shocked to hear this, I surfed the web and found a source that said it was ranked third (also surprising to me was the fact that the M:F gender ratio for suicides was 5:1). You have lost your marbles if you romanticize this age. :-P

Saturday May 14th 2005

Loosely related to the issue of excessive nationalism (5/12), I am irritated by the inability of some to accept a flaw without also pointing out flaws in others. For example, if the inefficiencies of the Norwegian welfare state are brought up, some Norwegians feel compelled to point out that tens of millions of Americans are without healthcare. It is not my intent to pick on Norway, but it is my experience that we have a tendency to be bad at taking criticisms to heart. [I also prefer to point out interesting things in this forum; I will leave it to others to state the obvious., e.g. the deficiencies of American healthcare.] That being said, "Swedes are indeed cute but only Norwegians are Norwegian" (paraphrasing slightly). I hope you all enjoy your 17th of May! :-)

Why do people sing in public? Perhaps it is unfortunate (or even snotty), but this is one of my pet peeves. If you were talented whatsoever then you wouldn't be singing while waiting for the train at Princeton Junction. I have wondered whether it is considered a sign of self-confidence to embarrass yourself and those around you by screeching raunchy lyrics about your hoes. Presumably I am old and out of touch.

Friday May 13th 2005

Why do we sometimes have utterly illogical fears? The specific one that aroused this question is the fear of being expelled from graduate school. I seldom have this fear, but it has occurred during past periods of academic inactivity - whether or not it is "my fault". I have friends, however, who at times are nearly paralyzed by this angst. But it is an absolutely unfounded and ridiculous fear for every one of them. Even more confounding is the fact that most are intellectually aware of this dichotomy but are nonetheless unable to control the emotion. While it can be a motivating factor once in a blue moon, it is clearly counterproductive more often.

"Talking the talk and walking the walk are two entirely different things." It is certainly a cliché, but one that I think I ought to address in light of some of my (seemingly self-righteous) posts. Or, to be more accurate, I have noted before (4/11) how it is important to be conscious of one's own weaknesses but that succeeding at this does not imply that the weakness ceases to exist. I feel obliged to semi-regularly note that the fact that I discuss any of these issues does not imply that I have remedied them or that they are any less of an issue for me. Presumably this perceived obligation on my part is related to my disdain for conceit and fear of seeming so (3/29). As noted, however, the intellectual realization of such does not necessarily make the emotion any less potent... *sigh* stupid brain. :-P

Link of the day: Unskilled and unaware of it (thanks Ann)

Thursday May 12th 2005

May 17th is Norway's national day of independence (Wikipedia). It is a very important holiday where all K12 schoolchildren walk in parades (as do parents that are part of certain organizations). It would not be a tremendous exaggeration to say that everyone that can bare the weather will participate in the public celebrations. It is an all-around very joyous day that children look forward to in great anticipation. I love it for these same reasons, but on occasion I wonder whether there is too much nationalism. I think the average Norwegian is raised to believe (realize) that he is fortunate and that there are many others that are less so. Appreciating your blessings (and then giving to those less fortunate, which Norwegians do) is certainly a good thing, but believing that Norway is the greatest country of all is the all-too-common unfortunate side-effect. I do not think the average Norwegian is too nationalistic, but at the same time it is very difficult to know when one has stepped over the line.

There are a few things that invariably get me riled up, and fakeness is one of those I have a hard time controlling my contempt for. It is part of a larger and essential belief that good friends should always be open and honest with one another. [NB: I am using 'essential' in the philosophical sense w.r.t. myself.] Sound interpersonal bonds cannot be based on a superficial or false dialogue. I particularly abhor fake happiness. Obviously one cannot constantly wallow in ones own dissatisfaction, but those who go to great lengths to radiate an aura of felicity are not only fooling themselves but they are also doing the friendship a great disservice. [It is also a highly unsupported theory of mine that it is difficult to be honest with oneself when one is not so with close friends.] If you are unhappy about something then you should tell someone, but if you are unable to discuss the underlying issues then at the very least you should not profess bliss. </lecture>

Link of the day: Tromsø summer weather

Wednesday May 11th 2005

I find the associative nature of memory interesting. That is, how a scent, a song, a movie, etc. will instantly and vividly remind us of some person or situation that we might not have thought of in a long time. The recalled experience might not even have been memorable in and of itself, but some aspect of how it was perceived or shared causes us to permanently associate it with this stimulus. It seems to me that such associations rarely occur unless the other persons are otherwise out of your daily life (e.g. old friends, past relationships, etc.), which is peculiar. It makes me wonder how people with long-term (and at least reasonably successful) relationships are able to move on. [Presumably this challenge is part of the explanation of why widows and widowers have such a high mortality rate shortly after their partners have deceased.] Luckily our survival instinct surpasses and encompasses most others.

There is something soothing about old habits. I watch Star Trek and eat a wawa sandwich (a 'wawich') for lunch at least once a week. Last summer I would watch an episode in company nearly every night before going to bed. I have always been good at entertaining myself, often using imagination to transport myself to another place, and my Star Trek tradition is probably especially enjoyable on this account. Yet it is still odd how something very simple can feel so right and comfortable simply due to the fact that one has experienced it many times before. Perhaps this phenomenon is not entirely unrelated to the above paragraph...

Quote of the day: "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long." - Eldon Tyrell from Blade Runner
Link of the day: neuroethics (deserving of its own comment at a later stage)

Thursday May 5th 2005

I am too judgmental sometimes. I was recently reminded of this when a female friend told me of an experience at a club with a group of guys she had recently met. There were a few aspects of the story that caught my attention. The guys spend lavishly when they are out on weekends (over $2,000 on this occasion), one of them proclaimed his own chastity, how he loved the fact that his girl who lived in another state was "innocent" and did not know of his opulent lifestyle, he also talked about how much he loves children, yet he and his friends became more "forward" as the evening progressed. I think the above characteristics should raise a red flag (e.g. always be cautious of a man who highlights his own virtues), but my initial reaction was overly suspicious and hastened. I also admit that I am guilty of some of the above myself. While it is my belief that the combination of the above tidbits are telltale signs of someone with a deliberate goal, it is certainly no smoking gun. If I cannot come with a well-informed critique then I should probably keep my prejudices to myself.

How does one compromise on location in a relationship? Clearly one cannot meaningfully meet midway or one might end up in Missouri (or perhaps Reykjavík if one person is from Scandinavia...). Much like a difficult three-year-old, I want it my way, I can't explain why I should have it my way, but I refuse to compromise. Unlike most three-year-olds, however, I recognize that my stance is not very logical. Regrettably, I doubt there is any reasonable way to compromise on this. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would be very interested in hearing how.

Link of the day: Heimskringla

Wednesday May 4th 2005

How do people meet one another? It is perhaps a naive question, but sometimes it seems so random that it is a miracle that our species has thrived thus far. I have a sense that engineers rarely find compatible partners through a class, partly due to the simple fact that there are much fewer female engineers. [And while men claim that is to the benefit of the girls, there is a good Ph.D. comic that represents a counter to this point.] Online dating schemes are becoming increasingly popular (e.g. match.com or okcupid). I am initially rather skeptical to such sites [it just feels lazy and a little dirty - e.g. how do you answer the question "so how did you meet mommy, daddy?", "I used russianbrides.com!"], but perhaps this is the wave of the future. Until this somewhat unfortunate future arrives, however, I think the best available option is to rely on friends. Good friends know the difference between A) who you seem to be, B) who you claim to be, and C) the "real" you. So hopefully your friends don't think you're a lost cause. ;-)

I have received a couple of semi-jocular complaints when I raise an issue and do not reach a satisfactory conclusion. To be more precise, people recognize that many of the presented issues that are too complicated for me to reach an informed and supported conclusion even through crude means "in the space allotted." But some have alluded to the fact that it is a bit of a copout to not even give a tentative opinion on such occasions. The topic in question is the differences in the work/life balance equations of men and women (4/27). While there are many good arguments for why one ought to treat such tricky and sensitive issues carefully, the truth of the matter is that it was indeed a copout. As I stated before, I believe that primary responsibilities for chores ought to be partitioned, but clearly the interesting discussion lies in how to perform this partitioning. Frankly, I require more thinking and debating before I am willing to make any further statements beyond the wishy-washy "compromise is necessary" conclusion from before, but be assured that I am aware of when I do not reach a conclusion and that it is rarely an accident. :-P

Quote of the day: “The pill is for cowards – real men aren't afraid of unprotected sex or alimony.” Frode Henriksen
Link of the day: My old page (from freshman year of college)

Tuesday May 3rd 2005

The differences in how guys and girls (stereotypically) communicate can cause some major frustration. Case in point, guys don't understand why some girls are unable to be direct and say that they are not romantically interested in someone. I have several friends who have been rejected by girls through the all-too-common "don't respond to his emails" method. This method reminds me of how kids cover their eyes and then believe that others can't see them. A guy will assume that a girl is interested in him if she goes on a date with him or gives him contact information. Perhaps this is a flaw but this is the way we are, and I doubt this is very different for girls.
Recently a female friend of mine experienced it from the other perspective, however; which made me better understand the process. One argument presented is that it would be presumptuous to think that the guy were interested before one is absolutely sure of this. But it has been my experience that girls are quite good at picking these signs up early (or, alternatively, guys are very bad at hiding their interests) so I do not fully accept this argument. The more persuasive point is that we are very hesitant to reject people in general. I understand this sentiment, but I also think that one will be a lot less frustrated/hurt/angry at being rejected by an unknown person than feeling like one has been led on (taken for a ride) by a person that one has spent some time getting to know. I appreciate the difficulty of turning someone down, but I think everyone would be better off if we learned to say and live with the simple words "I'm not interesting in you romantically."

I have been thinking lately about what the various levels of commitment in a relationship mean, and how one knows when to move from one to another. On one extreme, most of us know someone who is constantly in a relationship and will find a new partner quickly no matter how serious the past bond was. I have thought for a long time that this was not desirable because I felt it indicated a lack of commitment in the previous one. This is essentially the belief that deep bonds are rare and hence one should not be able to replace them easily. I acknowledge that this is no absolute, because I have no indication that the people who move more quickly between relationships are less happy or worse off in any other measurable way. Nor is it necessarily true that such people are less dedicated in a relationship; they might merely be better at letting go once they realize the futility of trying further in a given relationship. Despite these qualifications, I still belong to the more old-fashioned ideology on this issue. While I believe that an individual date is rather meaningless (i.e. according to the Lairdian principle "A man will date anything once."), but that repeated "dating" (i.e. exclusively) should not come too easily. I admit I do not have a very convincing argument in support of this at the moment.

Quote of the day: "Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is." Barbra Bush
Link of the day: Old IRC Quotes (mostly in Norwegian)

Monday May 2nd 2005

Why is it so difficult for people to be friends with their exes? Presumably it would be hard if the relationship ended messily, but there are plenty that ended as amicable as possible but where the parties still do not retain the friendship. Since a good friendship lies at the foundation of any decent romantic relationship, one would think that the parties would seek to retain it at some point. It has been hypothesized to me that one never truly gets over an ex and so it would be too complicated to have a post-relationship dialogue. I'd like to think this is false, not only because it has not been the case for me, but also because this would imply an eternal weakness regardless of what new relationship you form (i.e. denial is no remedy). Thus far I have been successful at reinitiating a dialogue with past girlfriends, and while I expect this to continue, it seems to be an artifact of my behavior rather than a general rule. I have no good explanation of why this is so.

I very much appreciate the positive feedback that I have received from this page. A couple of times I have met "random" people who have told me that they have enjoyed reading my deliberation of these issues, which is obviously rewarding. Along similar lines, I want to reiterate that I'm always interested in hearing others' thoughts on these matters. I am certainly mistaken about many things and so it would benefit me to hear as many views as possible, and even if my opinion on some issue does not change, the issues themselves are often important enough to warrant repeated investigation and contemplation.

Thursday April 28th 2005

The vast majority of my friends seek intelligent partners but there seem to be some distinct gender differences in play. Without exception, the girls I have talked to claim to seek guys who are at least as intelligent as themselves, while the guys prefer to perceive themselves as smarter. [Clearly not all girls or guys live up to these claims, as I have a few friends who have gone the way of a "trophy partner". I do not necessarily think this is regrettable or leads to less happiness, but I would prefer otherwise for myself.]
There are many factors at play here, which makes reasonable analysis difficult. For one, my samples of both men and women are highly skewed towards the educated or even intellectuals and thus not generalizable to society as a whole. In particular, intelligence is in many ways the "craft" of these people and so I believe the men will instinctively and subconsciously have a strong link between their self-worth and perceived relative intelligence. Intelligence is also very difficult to quantify. One can notice when someone is at an entirely different level, but within these crude levels it can be very difficult to distinguish peoples' intellectual prowess. Furthermore, it is obviously much easier to detect when someone fails to appreciate subtleties in your arguments than vice versa.
And, almost as a corollary, the aforementioned difference unfortunately legitimizes (at least statistically) the behavioral trend that some girls "dumb themselves down" around guys because they (correctly) perceive that this might improve their chances with many men. I think we all can agree that this is distressing; particularly distressing to me because I believe the actual differences are less than the perceived ones. [My argument for this relies on the fact that if we believe or perceive X - in this case through convenient denial - then we care less whether X actually.]

On a considerably less serious point, I sometimes talk to myself and I'm curious how prevalent this is in general. [Given how loquacious I might seem from this "thoughts page", the fact probably does not surprise you.] The majority of the time I do this internally, but I know that there are others who frequently do this aloud (sadly even members of my own family!). To me, this activity mostly serves as a way to internally debate/contemplate the philosophical questions that these days often end up here. If the argument becomes heated (which it sometimes does) I may inadvertently blurt out some phrase, at which point I nervously look around to ensure that my secret is still safe. :-)

Quote of the day: "A very small part of this great system, during a very short time, is very imperfectly discovered to us; and do we thence pronounce decisively concerning the origin of the whole?" David Hume
Link of the Day: Google Maps & Craigslist

Wednesday April 27th 2005

I have said before that men and women are different and that that's a good thing (3/14). While this is something I very much believe in, there are clearly some (traditional) differences that are less than equitable - e.g. as far as work/life balance is concerned. For some of these I'm not yet sure where I stand. That is, I want things to be fair but I'm not sure what fair is. I am also oftentimes reminded of an annoying truism that my father would remind me of when I was given more chores than my younger brother: "fair is not the same as equal". I have believed for a long time that the primary responsibility for various household chores ought to be divvied up (which, if one is not careful, is essentially the same as "gender roles" - everyone's favorite phrase), but that this certainly does not imply that that the split should adhere to traditional gender-lines. I prefer this partly because I am very organized, but also because I believe there are some desirable convenience and accountability fallouts.
At any rate, I have discussed these issues with a several of my best female friends, many of whom are very driven to succeed. My sense is that there are certainly disagreements w.r.t. what extent these man/woman (as opposed to male/female) differences are legitimate and ought to be continued, but invariably these girls appear to spend a substantially larger amount of their time wrestling with these issues than their male counterparts. I think one can safely say that the job description of a mother stereotypically appears to be more time-consuming than that of a "father" and so an ambitious girl who also wishes to have a family will often struggle quite a bit with the work/life balance issue.
I think there is no avoiding that some level of compromise must be struck (both for men and women), but that this issue is too complicated for me to address in any further detail right now. So to be continued. :-)

It was brought to my attention recently that spelling (especially over AIM) is falling by the wayside. I will not win any political correctness awards for saying so, but what I am referring to here appears to be more popular with girls. [I think I was disqualified for PC awards a long ago anyway.] That is, proper English has fallen out of favor and words are replaced by "cutely" spelled variations (sometimes spelled phonetically) of their originals. Presumably the lack of rigor has a lighthearted or perhaps even cheery connotation, which then serves as the appeal. Incidentally, the person who brought this to my attention was a female friend and while I do not share her contempt for this trend, I too find it unnecessary and sometimes annoying. :-P

Link of the day: Declaration of Revocation

Tuesday April 26th 2005

Where do our concepts such as honesty and integrity come from? While I am loathe to be too much of a pessimist, I sometimes find myself agreeing philosophically with some of Hobbes' principles (see below quote). Yet despite this belief that the basic nature of man is probably very self-serving, the above concepts are very central to the way I live my life. It seems initially odd that one would strive for and value so highly a virtue which is only present in man as far it is convenient. But that then is probably key in the explanation. I won't cover the relevant arguments in the Leviathan, but I think ultimately the aforementioned virtues are self-serving in order to get oneself out of a Prisoner's Dilemma-type situation (Hobbes' state of nature). Valuing them is therefore indirectly self-serving.

[This comment is entirely un-philosophical, but important enough that it should be highlighted.] Two professors have now commented on the poor student attendance at the Princeton CS job talks this semester, and I wanted to reiterate the point. Our poor showing (including my own) is a bit of an embarrassment and something we ought to fix. We are members (and even representatives) of this academic community and so we have a responsibility to contribute to its continued health and vibrancy. Let's remind each other of these responsibilities and reverse this recent trend.

Quote of the day: "The bonds of words are too weak to bridle men's ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions." Thomas Hobbes

Monday April 25th 2005

Why do we seek purpose in our lives so feverishly? We spend a lot of time figuring out why we are here and where we are going - especially those of us who do not believe we are placed here by a higher power. For example, I am pursuing a Ph.D. and I often question my direction in the midst of completing tedious and uninteresting tasks. If I cannot necessarily explain why I have chosen this direction then I certainly cannot hope to understand the purpose of my being here (when in fact I want both). It is unclear why we should even think that there is purpose whatsoever. I have often thought and said that the most basic purpose is to find a mate, reproduce, and raise successful children. But these tasks are inspired by instinct, and instinct certainly does not cover the connotations associated with 'purpose'.
I think it is inevitable that rigorous reasoning on this issue will end up being debunking in its nature, but that this doesn't necessarily have to be depressing. I think humans in general have a strong tendency to put substance and value into biological mechanisms where there really are none, and then be very unsatisfied when science proposes an alternate explanation of some such term (e.g. 'attraction'). I think there are ways of making these reductions more palatable (e.g. "science explains your perceptions/feelings within a rigorous framework"), but ultimately one just has to accept the facts (in whatever state they're in) for what they are.

Ann proposed essentially that pride might be a self-protection mechanism. Particularly in the sense that it stops you from allowing others to walk all over you. The initial response might be to suspect that these are different definitions of 'pride', which prompted me to look up the following one from The American Heritage Dictionary: "A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect." So I think now that we are probably working with the same definitions, and that it is mainly a question of degree. [Which, incidentally, reminds me of a discussion I've had with many people, most recently Ahreum, about how 'assertiveness' is stereotypically associated with 'manliness', but that it doesn't take too much assertiveness to be undesirable.] That is, one needs self-respect in order to be confident (and hence happy), but too much of it will be a great deterrent. Moderation can be such an unsatisfying conclusion sometimes. :-P

Link of the day: hopskip

Sunday April 17th 2005

It is not readily apparent to me what good pride does. It can prevent you from asking for help when you ought to, it can prevent you from humbling yourself in the short-term when it serves you in the long-term, it can prevent you from participating in something you are not good at, it can prevent you from risking rejection, and it can prevent you from apologizing for, or going back on, past mistakes. I believe I have become better at curtailing the emotion and doing instead what I intellectually think to be right, but it can be a powerful force to subdue sometimes. I would be very interested to hear if anyone has ideas on what the purpose of pride is, because it seems to me almost exclusively detrimental.

We are all influenced by our peers. Some people are completely malleable as in they have no internal substance and merely adapt their personality to best suit their surroundings. While this is certainly not true for any of my friends, the fact that some people are a good influence on us and others are bad, is inescapable. In the past I have had a tendency to see things in black-and-white, and I used to pride myself on the fact that this moral anal-retentiveness had a good influence on some of my friends. Yet I am increasingly leaving the self-indulgent notion that "I make them better" for the belief that a person with a good influence [on you] is one that helps you realize and adhere to principles that you already hold true. That is, I am increasingly inclined to think that we all acquire an intuitive personal and moral fabric fairly young, but that it takes people different lengths of time to fully absorb it. A clue to this is that most people will recognize when they have done something less than ideal (because they regret it), and hence the difference is not about fabric but rather acceptance and adherence to it. I still believe that one individual can profoundly influence another, but I think the majority of influence comes through much more subtle means.

Quote of the day: "Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery of party, faction, and division of society." John Adams

Saturday April 16th 2005

How do you know when it is time to marry? I have been thinking about this lately because two friends (Sandeep and Frances) are now engaged to be married to their respective partners. I am sure it will come as no surprise that I am opinionated on this topic also. I think it is important to have some thoughts on the matter, mainly because forever is an intimidatingly long time and an aspect that many people don't give adequate consideration. And seeing as how one's ability to reason dispassionately might be impeded when such questions become relevant, I think it is wise to conceive of some a priori rules-of-thumb ahead of time. I have come to the conclusion that there are some aspects to how a person behaves in a close relationship that cannot be predicted from other personality traits. With this as a premise, one can easily deduce that living together (simulated marriage?) for an extended period of time is essential. While there are certainly other aspects, I believe this to be the most important checkpoint as it is the best data from which to extrapolate.

One of the more popular traits that people look for in friends is acceptance. I might regret quoting Star Trek, but Data put it nicely when he said "[Geordi] accepted me for what I am. And that, I have learned, is friendship." It is not that I do not think acceptance is important, but I believe other things are much more so. That is, when confronted with criticism, some people have a tendency to revert to what can appear a trump card - "this is who I am, and if you are my friend then you will accept me for it". I believe this is all too often used as a shield against improving upon oneself. Clearly no one wants a friend who constantly brings up your inadequacies, but it is also very important to have friends who will tell you when veer off course. Because we all do it from time to time.

Link of the day: Cornell Fellowship

Friday April 15th 2005

I am very interested in my poor and selective memory. I am told by those who "know" that I had a fairly rough time at Princeton HS (too much work and a hard time relating to my peers), yet I remember almost no specific incidents from that year. For example, a large girl in my German class puked all over a Danish senior, which is something I would've thought I'd remember. In this regard my memory retention not only appear to be convenient, but it also seems to drag down a lot of other memories with it (splash damage effect). On the other hand, I know I had some of my best times at Kongsbakken, but there are a lot of specifics that appear to be fading from those days also. If my retention was exclusively convenient then I should remember these incidents also. Perhaps I am merely going senile...

I find it interesting how different cultures have different opinions on how to raise children. [Excuse me while I speak in stereotypes.] A lot of the Asian friends I have were half-raised by their grandparents. And many wish that their parents will have a similar impact on their future children. While I spent a fair amount of time at my grandparent's house, it was not a regular event and I would not say that they raised me. I spent my weekdays at a daycare lady from approximately 9 months until I started school, which I think is normal for Norwegian children these days (though more stay at daycare centers). I think there are many important social skills that children learn very young through interacting with other kids w/o direct/strict parental supervision. It would be stupid to think that these abilities could not be learned while raised by a stay-at-home parent or grandparents, but for some reason I worry that this growth could be more easily stunted in such a setting.
I have long had fairly strong ideas about what type of environment I think is ideal for children. I want my children to grow up in a loving, caring, and moral household; where they learn to respect science, logic, and others' views; openly show and express affection; and where loyalty and dedication to friends and family is at a high premium. I have come to realize that it is unusual (at least for a man) to have well-defined ideas about these matters - and presumably it is unnecessarily premature - but given the importance I assign to this aspect of life, I should know exactly what and why it is I am unwilling to compromise on.

Quote of the day: "[While the grass might be greener on the other side of the fence], if you jump across you'll probably have to mow that lawn also." Frode Henriksen

Tuesday April 12th 2005

How does one know when it is time to end a faltering relationship? Given today's divorce-rates in the US (along with an instant-gratification culture), I would speculate that many quit too soon. Clearly there are many other aspects, such as entering into a relationship prematurely, vis-à-vis my 4/11 comment. Yet on the other hand we can also become very detached and thus stay in a bad situation much longer than necessary because we are unable to make the decision that we know to be right. There is a large amount of momentum of attachment (e.g. shared friends and experiences) that greatly obstructs our reasoning.
My stance on this has been to err on the side of caution and continue trying longer than I strictly considered useful. I cannot remember a time when I have completely lost my composure and thus I am not concerned that a relationship would deteriorate to the point of viciousness. [I am admittedly an idealist, but I believe this is always avoidable if there is enough respect in the relationship.] I am of the opinion that humbling oneself in the present (and accepting grief in a relationship that you believe will probably falter) should be much preferred over the possibility of future regret. One rarely regrets trying extra hard or unnecessarily extending a relationship [within reason], but leaving something unfinished and wondering "what if" can resonate for a very long time.

Why are we sometimes angry at others for what we are ourselves capable of? [Thanks to Maya for this one.] It is height of hypocrisy, but I think the vast majority of us are guilty of this at some point. I actually don't have any insight to share about this right now, I merely wanted to mention it. :-)

Link of the day: my old website. :-P

Monday April 11th 2005

It is interesting how I often link morality with pain/difficulty. That is, the most difficult decisions are often perceived as the most moral ones. Perhaps it is partly because I know that words are cheaper than deeds. For example, we are all social animals to some degree and in that regard there are lots of experiences we appreciate mainly in company - specifically in a relationship. Obviously this desire to share experiences with someone makes us vulnerable to compromise on who that someone is. There are certainly degrees in how strong this desire is felt, where some people have a constant need for a companion and thus quickly move from one relationship to another, but I think the basic emotion is strong and shared by most. Tying the example back to the original point, there is often a strong correlation between how moral I consider my action and the degree to which I am tempted to make an action that I intellectually know to be less than ideal (where the temptation rarely relates to the external someone, but rather some internal state). I am not sure that I think philosophically that this is a sound correlation.

Most of us are flawed. I have previously lectured about both taking criticism and continuously working to improve oneself (which I'm sure you all love to hear). Another aspect I feel strongly about is recognizing and contemplating on one's shortcomings. For example, w.r.t. the above paragraph, I have come to recognize that I am in danger of entering into a rebound relationship (I do not believe I have actually done so, but that is due to fortune and not design). I think the fact that I am conscious of this hazard makes it less likely that it will happen, though it certainly does not make me immune to it. Perhaps I am merely stating the tired cliché that "recognizing that you have a problem is the first step," though I think the process is a bit more continuous.

Sunday April 10th 2005

I have been thinking for many years about what personality traits I should seek in a girl I wish to date. I am a rather deliberate person, and with my past failures I have become particularly conscious of what does not work with me. [Though it is extremely important to remember that what you think is good for you might not be what actually is good for you.] Then a few days ago I decided to write down such a list, so bare with me for a moment while I share some items with you: ability and desire to improve oneself, atheist or agnostic, happy and positive outlook, interesting and dynamic personality, strong belief in loyalty and commitment, respectful of others' belief, flexibility w.r.t. living location, intelligence, "cocktail-party" abilities, warm and giving, desire to please, strong ability to openly communicate on all topics, and independent yet able to compromise and sacrifice. The list is obviously incomplete, deliberately in no particular order, and some points are more important than others. What struck me as I studied the list, however, is how it is remarkably similar to what I seek in great friends; nearly identical in fact. Curious, isn't it? :-)

I wonder if I would be more effective as a martyr? I realize this is a rather morbid train of thought (sorry mom and dad!), but these are exactly the difficult issues I wish to discuss in this "forum". The 'effectiveness' I am thinking of here is both the ability to leave a footprint and the ability to spur change. As I've noted earlier (3/22), I presently have no large aspirations to change the world (and I don't think my death could accomplish much towards this end either). I do try to influence affairs on a more localized scale (specifically friends), however, but generally through less drastic means. I care immensely about this though, and I take much pride in the fact in that my advice is generally sought and appreciated by good friends.
A couple of years ago I had a infatuation with a random philosophy girl (mainly because she was a redhead). I was frustrated with life and the state of the world when my attempts to woo this girl did not succeed (in hindsight it is very fortunate that she had a boyfriend). A few days after this I received an email from Norway that informed me that a friend of a friend (and somebody I knew of) had committed suicide. Subsequent to this experience I wrote a poem where the catch-line was "perspective is only truly achieved through death" (02/10/02). I think this is an important point to reflect on - i.e. I believe we humans have a flaw where we most naturally experience things as relatives (specifically we only truly appreciate our blessings when we realize the depths of possible misfortune).
In the same way that death brings ultimate perspective, it also seems to have a tendency to be both uniting and force people to reflect further on the beliefs of the deceased. These characteristics are tremendously amplified in the case when someone dies young or as a martyr. Therefore, if the footprint I wish to make in this world (specifically in how it spurs change) is substantially more important than the single individual me, should I be willing to sacrifice myself for my cause? I feel it is necessary to note that I am not considering suicide whatsoever (not mainly because suicide is quite contrary to martyrdom), but I still find these thoughts interesting to ponder.

Wednesday April 6th 2005

Why have I been so lucky to find great friends? In my highly biased opinion, I think I have abnormally many good friends of great personal fiber (defining it better would take too long). I obviously do not think there is a deliberate scheme that have caused this to come about, nor do I think it is completely random. One could hypothesize that one is more likely to become friends with people with a similar value system, and thus others would also come to the conclusion that their friends are the best ever. Though there is certainly some truth to this, I suspect there is a lot more at play. Even if I grant the hypothesis, however, I have good friends (who generally agree with me in what to consider a great friend) who have been much less fortunate, and I cannot explain the difference.

I also wish to say that it is likely that my updates will become increasingly rare (as is already happening). That does not mean I have nothing to say, but I did not create this page to discuss "current events" in my life. I think such blogs too often deteriorate into a public airing of one's dirty laundry (much like the mentioned "pseudorandom IM profile rants" 3/14), which is unproductive and frequently hurtful. Being a person who overanalyzes everything, however, I feel obliged to say that my lack of updates should be construed as nothing more than a lack of [contemplating] interesting philosophical questions. :-) For me such things come in waves and hardly ever during busy times.

Link of the day: Liddy Shriver Sarcoma Initiative
Quote of the day: "This above all: to thine own self be true" - Shakespeare

Friday April 1st 2005

A few days ago I saw a picture of two random girls at some party. It was interesting because both girls had a "fake" smile on, but one was more believable than the other. It made me think of appearances in general, and how girls stereotypically (I will henceforth stop adding 'stereotypically' - political correctness be damned) are more conscious of them. Case in point: in my limited experience I have found that girls have more plausible fake smiles than guys - why is that? It cuts both ways: most people care about appearances to some extent and we all agree that a smile certainly helps a lot, so then why do a lot of guys (including myself) have an instinctive resistance towards putting up a fake smile? The previously discussed aversion towards appearing fake (3/29) is not relevant here since I obviously do not object to others smiling to the camera. I think the advice of Dr. Douglas Comer (in his case regarding a proposed Cisco architecture) is relevant: "more research is needed."

In general I consider myself a patient person, but oddly enough my romantic life seems to be the exception to this. Too frequently I act as if I'm on a schedule. Thus far I have been lucky (and this is admittedly mere dumb luck) in that this feature of my personality has not caused me to enter into relationships that I have regretted, but I recognize the risk of such an event. The main negative affect of this perceived schedule is unnecessary grief - I am still darned young and I have nothing to gain by stressing.

Link of the day: health (adolescent obesity goes up, adolescent pregnancy goes down)
Bonus links of the day: The CSE Band (Theory Girl, Enjoy The Soundness)!
Quote of the day: "Our life is frittered away by detail... Simplify, simplify, simplify!" - Thoreau

Wednesday March 30th 2005

Delving deeper into the issue of our flawed sense of time and recollection, I find it interesting how our memories are tainted. Some people remember mainly the bad things, while others remember only the good. Personally I have a strong tendency to romanticize memories. For example, last summer had some trying personal moments, but unless I make a deliberate effort, I remember almost exclusively the good times. Perhaps this is due to the wonderful Palo Alto weather, enjoying myself with Linda and her family, hanging out with Sandeep, eating great food, or working at Data Domain. Whatever the cause, the fact that I do not remember many specific bad events is incongruent with some general perceptions. I think much of this is rather deliberate, however, as I often choose not to dwell on (or even choose to reject) memories of bad events. I think such a philosophy is best (for happiness and productivity) assuming that one recalls enough of the general trends. But if one does not even learn from the trends then one risks merely repeating past mistakes.

On a mostly unrelated point, I would like to preach for a second about the importance of communication. IMHO, the ability (and attempting) to communicate is up there amongst the most important virtues. Few things are more crucial to a relationship (whether romantic or between close friends) than an honest, open, and continuous dialogue. Yeah!

Tuesday March 29th 2005

I am not a religious man whatsoever, so there are no external (near-) ultimate criterion by which the morality of my actions are judged. A religious person presumably believes some sort of Divine Command Theory (read Robert Adams' seminal paper), which, if one assumes the ability to know God's commands, is understandably appealing for its simplicity and the fact that one can always refer to it for ultimate truth. One can therefore ask how I know which actions are right and which are wrong. As it turns out, I find this a very interesting, important, and difficult question and it is partly the reason why I studied ethics at Cornell.
Despite the fact that there is no clear method to how they are acquired, I certainly have my own set of poorly defined principles that I try to live by. These principles are inspired by many "commonsense" ideas that are shared with religion: do onto others as you would wish them do onto you (the "golden rule"), benevolence and self-pursuits are often intertwined (see quotes of the Bishop Joseph Butler), giving often brings greater happiness than receiving, etc. These principles are certainly heavily influenced by the morality of my parents first and foremost, and later my close friends.
Though Thomas Hobbes was a bit too harsh ("nothing is more easily broken than a man's word"), I believe - like many religions preach - that humans are basically weak. I believe that the moral man is not the one who does not have "immoral thoughts" (however you define that), but rather is the one who rejects those thoughts, rarely acts on them, and works to improve himself. I find the notion that we are born as sinners to be preposterous though.
In the end, however, I am admittedly stuck with little more than thoughts in my ahead about what is right and what is wrong. I do not have any ultimate authority that will guide me towards the moral life, nor do I believe any such ethical oracle exists. I see this as one of the central questions of humanity - how do you live the moral life. "Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." André Gide (whose literary works, incidentally, was placed on the "Index of Forbidden Books" by the Catholic Church in 1952).

I feel obliged to follow the preceding paragraphs with the remark that I think too highly of myself sometimes. On too many occasions I have made it appear as if I'm walking the difficult and hazardous path of the righteous man, when in fact I'm merely doing what I think is best. I loathe conceit almost as much as I loath fake people, and I think my aversion to both have led me to err too far on the side of caution. While this paragraph is true and important in its own right, I think it is a further example of this. (How's that for introspection? :-P)

Thursday March 24th 2005

I should've tried this much earlier, but thanks to Dhruva for whipping me into shape: RSS aggregators (my subscriptions) will save you lots of time in your quest for news. In many was it is a step into into the dark days of USENET, but there really is no other way to go if you read lots of news and want efficiency. I highly recommend using it.

Oh, inspired by an op-ed piece in the NYT, let me say that I do not, under any circumstances, want any extraordinary medical intervention in order to keep me alive. I would much rather die in peace than "live" in a semi-vegetated state. It is now a matter of record.

Tuesday March 22nd 2005

Does the fact that I do not have aspirations to solve world hunger make me a less good person than someone who does? I was inspired to consider this by a recent talk by a CS Ph.D. and former researcher who has recently mended his ways and is now studying public health at Harvard. There were many tales of how little work had made a wonderful impact, and little talk talk of how wonderful work had made no impact (which I worry is too often the case with academics). I do have some aspirations for world good, but they are primarily focused on education. While they are not quite as bad as giving laptops to starving children in Africa, they do not (directly) service the most imminent need. I must admit that I am fairly focused on myself and my friends at the moment, and the world will probably remain on the backburner until (if and when, that is) I feel more at ease with my success. [How I measure success will be the subject of a future rambling.]

On the topic of being a "bad" person, I appear to be the only one of my friends who does not object to the House Committee on Government Reform having the hearing on steroid usage in baseball. The primary argument against it is that there are some other annoying issues that are worth tackling (a few wars, twin deficits, lack of healthcare, and some other minor stuffs), and that our representatives are merely grandstanding in order to get their names in the papers (say it ain't so!). While I wholeheartedly agree with both these points, I am not swayed. I think partly it is because I accept that lawmakers will do nearly anything to get their names in the paper (I refuse to dignify the travesty that is the Schiavo case with a comment here) and so I think they can and do spend their times on less worthwhile pursuits. Even more importantly (and I am anticipating an objection here), I think that one cannot live in the idealized world where arguments such "they could do so much better" are persuasive. Somewhat along the same lines, there is also the reality that this hearing received more media attention than any other that this committee has held in a long while. One of the lawmakers even commented on this to the media and made a plea that the cameras should show up in equal force when they are discussing issues such as Social Security "reform". In the end, however, I think the primary reason I accept the hearing is because I care a lot about sports in general and it bothers me that the accomplishments of past athletes are undermined by the pervasive cheating that has occurred over the past decade and a half. I'm not quite sure what this says about me, but at best it is complicated. :-)

Link of the day: life vs. CS life by Saikat Guha.
Quote of the day: "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it’s probably a duck."

Monday March 21st 2005

Excuse me while I ramble for a second. My good friend Frode said to me long ago that "possible connotations of 'intellectual elite' are not my responsibility." I disagreed with him then and I disagree with him now. For example, the fact that I write poems does not make me a poet; nor does it imply that what I produce is poetic. The fact that I have rhythm does not mean I can dance (though it certainly makes it easier for me to pretend to!). My observation is probably both obvious and uninteresting to most of you, but such thoughts have been nagging me lately - i.e. connotations matter!

I have also been thinking about responsibility. Loyalty is extremely important to me and (thus?) to many of my closest friends. I feel a great deal of responsibility towards those who have been loyal to me in the past; more so than I think is "normal". I even feel responsibility towards the families of old friends and ex-girlfriends. I wonder why this is - what purpose these emotions serve. I believe it is a good thing, but the level of responsibility I feel towards individuals who are - in all other respects - out of my life has made some people uncomfortable. The fact that lots of people disagree with you is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason to change one's opinion, but it should prompt you to give your stance serious consideration (vis-à-vis the ability to take criticism and improve oneself).

Wednesday March 16th 2005

I have been thinking about the nature and definition of forgiveness lately. What prompted these thoughts was someone - call her Sally - telling me how she was verbally abused by their ex and then cheated on by him - and so she is unsure whether she can forgive him. I have concluded that I have a rather idealized view of forgiveness, wherein it involves mainly your state of mind. In the past I have thought that you can forgive someone when you are not constantly angry, you wish to be at peace with the other party, and you want to move on. That is, it does not imply that you are not sometimes angry at the other party, that you will ever forget what happened, or intend to continue relations with the other party. It is as if it is a noble act that requires only inner strength.
Understandably, my definition of 'forgiveness' does not help Sally all too much since she is still very angry with her ex. And since it is anger because of love gone bad, she is still inclined to take his call when he wishes to apologize and/or get back together with her. In this situation I find my definition of 'forgiveness' rather unsatisfying and useless, since I think that she should not take his call and he is only bad news. Forgiveness seems almost empty if you strongly do not want to (and should not) interact with the other party. Clean theories and definitions of value-laden substance always seem to fail. *sigh*

Taking criticism is an important ability that a lot of people could be better at. I think it is so important for personal and professional growth, in fact, that one should always work to be better at this. It could be something important such as a lot of people thinking you are too much of a control person, or something trivial such as people commenting on how you do not pass the soccer ball enough (though in certain circles that is a deadly sin!). Either way, listening to criticism can only benefit you. [Of course, if it turns into lecturing, then that's another matter...]

Tuesday March 15th 2005

A few years ago there was a 60 minutes episode that explored the Finish love for tango. In the report they noted how serious and seemingly unemotional the stereotypical Finn is, which was emphasized by the joke "A Finish man will tell his wife that he loves her at most twice: once at their wedding night, and once at her death bed." While this is a slight exaggeration, I think I belong more to this ideology - i.e. love is rare and worth fighting for. The downside to this belief, however, is that when others fail to fight for it then it is not shared love. The fact that "love" is something that high school kids say in a relationship, and something you can say mere weeks after meeting someone, is surely an indication of how watered down our substitute notion of love has become. The upside to the substitute is that you can find it almost anywhere.

I have an admission to make. I write poems. They are bad poems that only a handful of people have read. No one has read them all (with my permission), except me. I do not write them to share, however; they are a form of meditation and introspection that I found very useful. In that sense they are more like a journal for someone who can't write full sentences and can't admit to keeping a journal. They do not form a good picture of my state of mind, however, because I write predominantly when I am angry (and boy did I write lots during puberty!). In fact, I think almost all of my poems fall in three bad clichés: 1) "I hate fake people" 2) "Dude, she is so hot" 3) "God, she brings me so much pain". Why am I sharing this? Because I think you should try it - you'd be surprised at how it helps you to verbalize and understand your thoughts and emotions. [If our President is doing it then surely it must be a good thing.] If that doesn't work, go exercise at the gym.

Monday March 14th 2005

Why is it that almost every hobo you can find has some opinion ("insight") into the origins or nature of the universe?
A) Could it be because it is such an important part of our perceived existence? I would say that evolution (in the sense "which species evolved from where, and how does this make sense") is equally important and universal, but people will not go up to random biologists and say "I have a theory about from where we evolved!"
A) Could it be because the origins and nature of the universe is so cool? There are a lot of things that are cool, and even if this is the case, it would be interesting to know why so many people agree that this is so fascinating.
A) Could it be because people feel there is more room for bullshit-ing on this topic? The world is filled of such opportunities.

I have a problem with "pseudorandom IM profile rants". We know it is bad to communicate through AIM profiles, yet most of us have done it anyway. Why?

Speaking of which, why do we have such a strong tendency to think that everything is about us? Not all of the above "pseudorandom AIM profile rants" are specifically about us, but somehow we always interpret it that way.

Why do we have such a terrible sense of time? I visited my family in Norway two months ago, but that seems so distant; I said good-bye to some of my best friends at Cornell 10 months ago, but that is equally foreign; yet somehow visiting schools last spring (a year ago) seems like only yesterday.

Why is a man who takes charge seen as a leader, while a woman who does the same is all too easily seen as annoying or even bitchy?

Men and women are different, and that's a good thing.

How come meeting someone right is so difficult? Before you get serious, people play games and try to figure out how well they can do. After you get serious, we are too often unable to appreciate what we have.

Why do men get increasingly more stuck in their ways? It seems to happen to almost everyone as they grow older, but it is equally unproductive in all cases.

Why are we (as a species?) not better at improving our faults? Oftentimes we will recognize a fault within ourselves, but it might take a very long time to fix it.