Creativity, distraction, and impatience

  By TurboFool | October 31, 2010 - 1:11 pm | Books, Fiction, Humor
1 Comment

Occasionally I’m clever. Problem is it’s mostly spontaneous, short, and rarely useful. If I set out to do something clever or be clever I’m pretty much doomed to failure. But occasionally I stumble upon it.

A few years back (at least five) there was a post on the IGN Boards Vestibule (shudder) to post something completely nonsensical. I posted the following, which I wrote on the spot:

The earth really is flat, carried on the back of an octupus (of average size). The sun, which is also flat, actually revolves around the earth, flipping over at a rate of 1 googol per second. The moon (which, strangely enough, is round) is actually attached to the octupus by a giant string, and the octopus is using it as a yo-yo, but extremely slowly. The other planets are mostly illusions projected by the octopus’ older psychic brother, “sid” (not capitalized). The exception is Pluto which is, ironically, the home of Goofy, but, also ironically, this Goofy cannot talk. The planet, however, speaks in a thick, southern drawl.

Short, sweet, and arguably clever. I certainly thought so at the time, and elements of it capture my attention now. But what bugs me more is that I can rarely repeat anything of even this level, much less the exceptionally better writings that I’d love to create. Creativity astounds me, fascinates me, and earns my deepest respect. People who are creative fill me with awe, and I enjoy just basking in their existence. But inevitably I’m also left to some degree of jealousy, or at least envy.

I think my problem may simply be that I’m easily distracted and relatively impatient. I’m a perfectionist, and the catch with us is that if we can’t do something perfectly, we tend not to bother at all. When I start attempting to be creative and find myself not producing something up to my standards immediately, I walk away from it. What I completely ignore is that real authors, artists, etc. take weeks, months, or years to perfect their works, and I can only presume they all start with rough works that can’t possibly be up to their own standards. The problem is that knowing this doesn’t seem to help me. It doesn’t seem to put me on the right path. And worst of all, it doesn’t give me the idea with which to start. Perhaps that’s all I need is the kernel from which to work and I’ll have what I need.

Mmm… popcorn…

How open is your mind?

  By TurboFool | September 25, 2010 - 11:35 am | Free Thought, Science, Skepticism
1 Comment

I hear a lot of talk about open-mindedness. People pride themselves quite often on just how open their minds are, as though this is a great mental accomplishment and places their thought processes above those of the lesser minds who would close themselves off to the great possibilities of this universe. There are so many incredible possibilities out there that the poor, close-minded person can’t grasp or even accept as possibilities, and they’re left out of all the fun in which their open-minded friends and family get to participate. Such a sad life is that of the close-minded person.

But let’s examine for a moment what it really means to be open or close-minded, and the realities of each. I’m going to provide you with a simple thought experiment to see just how close-minded you are:

Sitting on my coffee table is a shoebox. Quite ordinary and plain, stripped of the price tags and such once adorning it, with the logo of some store brand shoe company. I point to the box and inform you that there is, in fact, a small rhinoceros in the box.

You’re snickering. Why? Don’t you have an open mind? Anything is possible, and who are you to decide that there can’t be a small rhinoceros in that shoebox? The universe is full of possibilities. Don’t you owe it to yourself to be open to this one and not miss out?

That’s better. I see you’ve come to your senses and remembered how open your mind is. Now that that’s corrected, why don’t you open the box and take a look at the rhinoceros. They’re really quite adorable at such a miniature scale.

What’s that? The box is empty? Oh, dear. Well, give it a minute and then open it up again. I’m sure it will be there this time, and it really is just too cute to miss out on.

What do you mean “that’s ridiculous?” Keep an open mind. Just because it wasn’t there a moment ago is no evidence that it won’t be there now. Remember: anything is possible.

I see your hesitation, but clearly you realize your dedication to open-mindedness must be preserved, and you open the box again only to find it empty.

How strange. I assure you it must be there. Why don’t you give it a few more minutes and then open it up again?

What? You refuse? You say there’s clearly no small rhinoceros in that shoebox and there’s never going to be? Tsk, tsk. You’re so close-minded.

There’s a progression between leaving your mind open to possibilities and finally closing it and moving it on. Somewhere between the two you have to cross a line where you decide that continuing to stay open to a possibility is simply irrational and absurd. For different people this line exists in different places. Some might have drawn that line with my first suggestion of a small rhino in a shoebox, rendering internally all the reasons this defies logic and reason, and refusing to so much as open the box. Another person might simply have taken the extra step of realizing there’s no harm in opening the box beyond being laughed at if I were merely playing a joke on them. Some even more rational people might run through the possible ways in which I might be using wordplay or omitting facts, suspecting I mean a toy rhino, or a drawing of a rhino, and opening the box to see such an object.

However I daresay that nearly all rational people, whether or not they pride themselves on open-mindedness, would close their minds to the rhino-in-the-box scenario upon opening it and confirming the lack of said rhino. It takes a very… special person to remain so dedicated to their open-mindedness that they would ignore this clear resolution to the question and continue down my path of assertions that it will reappear at any moment. And even the most extreme example I give in my scenario still gives up at some point and determines the rhino is a no-show, no matter how adorable I assure you it is.

Now the other end of the scale that I mentioned has a person refusing to so much as open the box. I would tend to agree that such a person would fit the definition of “close-minded” relatively well, as well as fuddy-duddy and a bore, as well as someone I’m rather confident I’ve never met. But the next step, the person who’s willing to open the box under the assumption that there’s a trick to be played, or a circumstance that he or she had not considered, seems to me quite open-minded indeed. This person recognizes the absurdity of the claim, but also recognizes their lack of clear knowledge of all of the circumstances surrounding the situation and is willing to entertain the possibility that their assumption, no matter how well-founded it is, could be wrong. Once the box is opened and their initial assumption is confirmed, though, they move on and waste no more time on the subject.

The point I’m trying to make here is that along the scale from closed-to-open minds, the people being accused of being close-minded are rarely actually so, while the people who pride themselves on being open-minded are never as open-minded as they claim to be. There’s always a line that will change one from the other if you just search hard enough for it.

When it comes to scientific endeavors, the so-called close-minded use these exact same tactics. They’ll take a claim and test it. Oh, sure, the tests for most absurd claims are far, far more complex than merely peeking into a box, but the base principle is the same. They take the claim and they pass it through all the possible tests. Depending on the complexity or importance of the test, there may be far more interest, far more rigorous tests, and far more people involved. But the idea remains the same that it’s carefully tested. Sometimes these close-minded scientists get a surprise and find that there’s something to this that they might not initially have assumed was there. Other times the tests continually disprove the claim.

But this is where the so-called open minds step in and cry foul. This is where claims are made that those damned close-minded scientists merely don’t want to see the truth. They’re ignoring the possibilities that are out there and are just covering their ears and humming, while the enlightened folks with their open minds can see what’s really going on. And no amount of scientific testing, research, facts, figures, statistics, and proof will change the mind of that open-minded person. That’s right, the open-minded will not be moved, because they know the truth, and their wide-open minds will not be changed no matter what you close-minded researchers learned about the subject. Huh… strange how similar being incredibly open-minded is to being extremely close-minded when viewed from the other side, isn’t it?

There’s a phrase, recently popular thanks to Tim Minchin (although he’ll readily admit it’s not his): “If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.” It’s funny, and while not literally true, it says a lot that comes close. When one opens their minds to all possibilities, and leaves it as wide open as possible, never narrowing the opening, never closing it for certain ideas that have played out their feasibility, never recognizing when something absurd has been sufficiently disproven, one loses all abilities to settle on any of reality. One loses the ability to look at something and recognize when it’s real, when it’s true, when it’s solid, when it can be believed, trusted, accepted, and relied upon. Everything becomes possible, and anything can be true and untrue, and you can’t settle down and move on. You get stuck and can no longer see the forest for the trees, the trees for the forest, or whether or not such things really exist.

Open-mindedness is wonderful, and it’s something that those of us who have been accused of not having it actually cherish. The ability and willingness to look at any possibility, examine it with as little bias as possible, test it, and reach a conclusion based on logic, reason, research, and the work of others gives us the ability to not only open our minds, but expand them with an endless array of facts and truths that turn us on to all of the very real possibilities of this world. But we must never close our minds off to the possibility that reality is just that, and some things aren’t possible, some things don’t happen, any dream we have isn’t the same as reality, and believing something against all evidence doesn’t make us open-minded, but close-minded to the only reality we have, and the endless possibilities it provides us if we just focus on them and stop blurring them with fantasy.

IIG 10th Anniversary Party recap

  By TurboFool | August 23, 2010 - 10:28 am | Entertainment, Free Thought, Science, Skepticism, Television
Leave a comment

Saturday night was the party and awards ceremony celebrating the Independent Investigations Group‘s 10th anniversary.

The party consisted of food, drinks, cake, chatter, wonderful special guests, and awards. Some of the guests included well-known heavyweights like Michael Shermer and Brian Dunning, as well as friend/colleague/lord Brian Dalton (Mr. Deity), and esteemed experts such as Carol Tavris, Harriet Hall and Eugenie Scott. This list were all presented with awards from the IIG for their achievements in promoting science, skepticism, and critical thinking.

Also awarded that evening for their achievements and assistance within the IIG were fellow members Wendy Hughes, Dave Richards, and Ross Blocher. Wendy and Dave each have brought to the IIG some of its biggest and most valuable investigations throughout its history, and Ross has pulled excessive all-nighters in redesigning the group’s web site, designing brochures and business cards, and more.

Also awarded were staff from the productions of Eureka and The Mentalist. While both could be said to play a little loose with factual science (especially the former), BOTH shows promote science and critical thinking heavily as forces for good, progress, and solving problems. They cast these topics in a positive light and help the viewers see just what we can accomplish when we focus on these topics. These two shows received the IIG’s special new SurlyRamics trophy designed by Amy Roth of Skepchick, which was truly beautiful and unique to our group.

The ceremony went smoothly and kept the attention of the crowd of over 100 people, many of whom were visiting the CFI or an IIG event for the first time, and all of whom seemed to leave with an extremely positive impression of our group and what we can achieve with little more than dedication and volunteer efforts.

I think it’s clear that after this weekend the IIG can expect to continue to steadily climb in its influence on critical thinking and skepticism. We’re branching out with affiliates across the country, and our own group has major efforts underway including our in-depth Power Balance investigation plans, The Odds Must Be Crazy web site, further efforts into the California Board of Registered Nurses reform, and much more that we’re not yet ready to talk about.

TAM8 left me with a lot of pride for the IIG’s place in the grand scheme and the respect we garnered from the community, but Saturday’s ceremony cemented it. Our impact cannot be questioned, and our support and success are all but assured if we keep up this pace.

Thanks to anyone who showed up to the event, as well as those who watched live on Ustream, where the event can still be viewed. Your interest and enthusiasm meant the world to us.

Here’s to another great year!

NOTE: This was written via the WordPress app on my Android phone. As such it’s tricky to verify spelling and create appropriate links right now. When I have time to edit from a computer I’ll review it and correct these issues.

EDIT: I’ve now gone ahead and made my adjustments including links and spelling verifications. Should be in better shape now.

http://www.skeptic.com/

Dishonest, ignorant, or does it matter?

  By TurboFool | May 22, 2010 - 8:44 am | Atheism, Evolution, Free Thought, Religion, Science, Video
2 Comments

I just watched a great video by potholer54 on the “controversial” (among people who don’t know wtf they’re talking about) subject of carbon dating and just had to post it here:

It leads me to question these unfortunately common tactics of creationists to explain their ideological viewpoints. In this case the never-failing-to-amuse Kent Hovind manages to quote-mine papers, skew findings to achieve his desired explanation, ignore already well-known limitations of the technology within the scientific community to show what’s already been found and worked around, and ignore direct warnings from scientists over the fact that the results he’d get were KNOWN to not be of what he was trying to find. And yet he goes right ahead anyway and does all of this to “prove” that carbon dating doesn’t work when it’s clearly only HE that isn’t working properly.

Now most assume this guy is just plain dishonest. And given his history of and imprisonment over tax evasion, it’s a fair assumption. But it’s not definitely the case. It’s also entirely possible that this guy is a complete idiot. Yes, yes, he’s a “doctor,” and he speaks in a way that suggests some level of intelligence, but those aren’t proof either. And then there’s the old cognitive dissonance issue where he believes his viewpoint so strongly that he’ll do anything to back it up, justifying the dishonesty to the point where he doesn’t even realize he’s being dishonest. I think it’s likely the first problem or the last, the first placing the blame entirely on Hovind, the last putting more of the blame on the overall concept that’s poisoned his mind so deeply against reality.

At the end of the day, believe what you will, but don’t fucking lie about it to me or impressionable people. Stick to facts, stick to proof, stick to reliable evidence, stick to reality, or STFU. You’re not helping yourself or anyone else by spreading arguments that are provably wrong, and especially arguments that were already proven wrong to you BEFORE you used them. Adjust, learn, adapt, and evolve your arguments as you learn. I know it runs contradictory to your view that the world is nothing but cold stone facts written in an ancient book, but the truth is our survival depends on adaptation, and you know it. Why else would you have renamed “creation” to “intelligent design?” You know your tactics have to change if they’re going to have any shot at success, and this tactic of continuing to use arguments that were disproven is one of them. Move on. And if you run out of such arguments, maybe it’s time to reconsider your position. You know, the way rational people do.

Sprint and the Samsung Moment

  By TurboFool | May 21, 2010 - 9:10 am | Electronics, Gadgets, Internet, Phones
Leave a comment

So I picked up Sprint’s Samsung Moment back in December because it was time to move to a modern phone OS. I’ve been a Windows Mobile user since before it was called Windows Mobile (Pocket PC 2002 was my first version), and had several Windows Mobile phone I liked overall and knew well. But I also knew their limitations, performance, and base functionality were not going to be compatible with the general way smartphones were meant to be used. While I won’t buy an iPhone, I’m not clueless about the advantages, and while I could defend Windows Mobile’s reasons for the way it did things until I was blue in the face, there were other matters that were hard to ignore.

So I made the decision to move to Android. I’m a Sprint user, and overall I’ve been very happy with Sprint. They’ve had their moments, and I’ve considered leaving on occasion, but they’ve always made good on their issues and their rates are good. So that narrowed my selection down to only two Android phones. There was just the HTC Hero and the Samsung Moment; no Droid, no Nexus One. And since I’m pretty hard set on having a QWERTY keyboard (or at least was at the time), and the Moment has an 800Mhz processor instead of the more common 600Mhz, I decided to go that route.

Both phones were “crippled” (exaggerating, I know) with Android 1.5. Not that it’s a bad version, but we had phones with 2.0 and some hitting with 2.1 already, not to mention many on 1.6, and yet these two still had a version that even Google was not supporting in half their app releases. That said, Sprint promised an upgrade to 2.1 in the first half of 2010, so I made the jump.

In general the phone was fantastic overall. While it had issues to overcome, its Market apps allowed me to plug in and tie in functions and features that resolved nearly all complaints, and performance was mostly fantastic, although randomly as bad as my Windows Mobile phone at times. Still, it changed the way I used my phone in general and made me pretty happy. Battery life was dreadful, though, forcing me to buy an extra battery, since NOBODY makes accessories for the Moment. It also had an annoying habit of randomly dropping my connection overall, sometimes during a call, but usually while doing nothing. It would pick it back up shortly after, but it would kill anything I was streaming or browsing.

Eventually leaks of 2.1 for the Moment hit, which I ran and was instantly enamored with. Pretty much every remaining complaint I had was resolved and performance went way up. Minor nagging issues remained, though, like GPS would almost never lock on, and stability was iffy.

Now Sprint caught a lot of flack for how much they delayed the 2.1 update. I won’t give them that crap myself. The reality is I can’t imagine how difficult it is to build and ship a stable, functional update to an OS like this. And while they did keep delaying it, in the end Sprint did release the update in the first half of 2010 as promised, and overall it’s great.

But there are a few rather serious catches, and they have me concerned. For one, GPS is still awful. Randomly it will fail to find my location, or take five-plus minutes to do so, or even force me to fully power-cycle the phone before I can get a lock. And then once it does work, it’s extremely flakey. I can be driving along the freeway and suddenly be informed that I’m on a side-street near the freeway and be given directions to get back on the freeway I’m already on. This isn’t terrible on long stretches, but if I’m already near my destination, or on streets, it can completely break my ability to follow the directions. Wasn’t like this on 1.5.

Another bigger issue is what’s being referred to online as data lockup. Randomly, but usually when the phone’s connection is being pushed by large downloads (such as Market updates) or streaming music/video, the data connection will completely lock up. I’ll get the up-arrow on the EVDO symbol locked on, no Internet will work, and then eventually the whole EVDO symbol will disappear and the phone will be without Internet until I pull the battery (shutting down isn’t enough) and then reboot the phone. And then it could be as soon as five minutes after I start it up again before it happens again.

The thing is, no matter how happy I am with Sprint overall, I know their patterns, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see these issues go completely ignored. In fact, I suspect this may be the last official update we receive for this phone before Sprint moves their focus to the upcoming Moment 2. And that seems unreasonable to me. Perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe we can expect another patch. But after how crazy it was to get this one, I can’t imagine them putting that much more effort into a phone that’s about to be EOLed (end-of-lifed). Which leaves those of us who sunk $200 into this phone SOL until we can afford to sink another $200+ into their next phone once we qualify for an upgrade on this one, and who knows how we’ll be treated then?

This is one place where I have to begrudgingly give Apple some credit for the iPhone. By being the only manufacturer, and by having only one (albeit crappy) provider, they have a lot more control and accountability for issues like this. I’d like to see Google make some efforts to improve matters like that. Even so, I can also imagine this would be less of a problem if it were an HTC phone. They have a better track record when it comes to this sort of thing, and I expect we’d get better support.

We’ll see what happens going forward, and I’m hoping Sprint steps up and manages to do right by their users on issues like this. And I hope Google does a little more to improve the upgrade process for their hardware developers so there’s less random disparity. Meanwhile I have my eye on the HTC EVO 4G. It doesn’t have a keyboard, but it’s going to be a current-gen phone with HTC’s weight behind it. Unfortunately I’m not up for an upgrade again until December, so unless Sprint resolves these Moment issues, I’m going to be stuck with them until then. Prove me wrong, Sprint, please.

Quantity or quality?

  By TurboFool | May 20, 2010 - 2:11 pm | Blogs, Internet
Leave a comment

I don’t post often enough for my taste or to build up a real readership. This is partially because I rarely have time to put the mental effort into this writing, not to mention formatting and coding, that I feel is necessary.

But im wondering if maybe I’m better off not worrying about all that and should just make use of the various tools at my disposal for writing short, quick, pointed posts. TweetDeck now supports WordPress, I have a WordPress app for Android, Windows Live Writer is so accessible, and WordPress’s own Quick Post feature is nice and simple. I have few excuses for not posting my random musings as they come to mind, even if they’re not link-heavy or full of videos and images. Better than not posting at all.

So let’s see f I can stick to it. Worth a try, no?

Flamebaiting as a marketing strategy?

  By TurboFool | May 12, 2010 - 10:25 am | Atheism, Internet, Religion, Science
1 Comment

So today I made the mistake of using the #atheism hashtag on Twitter. It wasn’t really a mistake, I did it purposefully, and was aware that it brands me exactly as I’m comfortable being branded. What I didn’t expect was the troll I got in response.

He doesn’t fit the classic description of a troll or flamebaiter per se, or at least not MY definition. He’s a calm enough guy who’s simply making the same old tired, illogical, badly-presented arguments. In particular he’s claiming that atheism is, in fact, a religion, and that he has proof of this, a list of 5 gods that atheists believe in, and that we need to stop saying we don’t have belief or that we lack belief.

Where it gets interesting, though, is that he mainly avoids making the arguments themselves, only referencing the fact that he has them. Why? Because he has a convenient eBook available for sale on his website that has all those answers! And it retails for only $4.99, which is actually quite reasonable. $4.99 is almost inexpensive enough to be worth me buying just to read his arguments which I’ll likely immediately recognize from decades of others making the exact same tired arguments, along with nonsensical ramblings full of logical fallacies. Then I’d have the ammunition with which to refute his claims directly and show him how flawed they are, assuming he’s capable of following an intelligent argument.

And right there is where I realized this guy’s hidden brilliance. Regardless of whether he believes his claims (I have no reason to doubt that he does), and regardless of whether I and many more knowledgeable folks can rip said claims to shreds, is irrelevant. Why? Because the moment he’s successfully baited us into wanting to read his evidence to dispute his inanity he’s made $4.99 off us (minus fees, of course). At that point we could prove he’s one of the worst authors on the planet and has no skills whatsoever in philosophy or theology, and he’ll still have proven that what he lacks in those fields he makes up for in marketing strategy. Much like Brian Dunning once pointed out, sure you can make a better hamburger than McDonald’s, but you can’t make a better business. It’s not about the product, it’s about the selling of said product. And this guy deserves some credit for that. I can make a better argument than he can, but at the end of the day, which of us has made $4.99 off the other?

I’ve purposefully avoided linking to the person in question, but if you’re interested in checking out what he has to say, look to my Twitter feed. While I personally don’t wish to financially support his flawed arguments or deceptive practices, I won’t prevent you from doing so. He is pretty clever, and perhaps some may feel he deserves a few bucks for that. So be it. Now, should he wish to send me a FREE copy of the eBook and prove this wasn’t his strategy and he really does want open and honest discussion of the subject, I’d be happy to review it here. But I’m not paying for the privilege of arguing with him. I’m not that big of a masochist.

EDIT 5/18/10: I realize I’m doing nobody justice by not providing some link to this guy’s chatter, especially since he’s apparently still at it, even if he left me alone when it was clear I wasn’t buying (his book or his BS). So check out his Twitter feed to see what he’s up to.