tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46641905270818969282024-02-21T00:54:19.952-08:00theory 2 lifeWelcome to theory 2 life: Where abstract thought meet concrete solutions. Or something like that.CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.comBlogger253125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-86701355819503459932013-03-22T14:15:00.000-07:002013-03-22T14:15:01.711-07:00There's actually something to that "girly beer" phenomenon...<i><a href="http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681612/are-hops-addictive">Popular Science and Inc Magazine</a></i>, recently pointed out that over time, beer lovers get used to drinking more bitter beers because they are seeking out the hops flavor. So if you are like me and get pitying glances from "true beer snobs" for not appreciating the hoppy taste of a double IPA, do not despair, just realize that you haven't had enough to drink yet.<br />
<br />
Unlike many of the "give-me-more-of-that" additives, humulones, the compound in hops that gives beer its bitterness, don’t affect the brain the same way as recognized, addictive compounds like caffeine or tobacco so it is not an addiction to hoppy beer but a sensory adaptation, when your perception of taste or smell dissipates over the course of exposure to the sensation. <br />
<br />
This happens with all types of food and drink, and in part accounts for <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidygsRV1cRG9wSwVc4RbsW9W8qQFOsvPLXxCvY9kcFfoY-OFBrvtMnmBYPDnpWuwiJwkSNe2GATEIixnlGTZjlUxO_So6ovoRgxlC-z0cvBMH9Nh7_ut2q0Dc6G3bM1vSGkcdM-pyFrU4/s1600/battle.jpeg">young finicky eaters</a> who just haven't eaten enough bitter veggies to stomach them yet. Therefore if you are starting down the road of any new taste specialization (read spice, coffee, wine) know that it's going to take awhile for you to get used to a specific additive or ingredient . And once you do your interest and desire for it may increase and therefore you may seek out spicier curries, blacker, stronger coffees or bolder wines over time. <br />
<br />
But also know that anyone who is a particular expert in a cuisine may be more used to their palate's level and based on the laws of habituation is actually tasting things differently than you are. So it's okay to start tamer - embrace your "girly" starter choices. You can explain you are working your way up to a deeper love of something. CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-84278045411833697772013-02-19T13:37:00.003-08:002013-02-19T13:37:28.314-08:00Portion controlOver saturation has yielded a new trend in culture: the mini. Just as fun as tapas, mini-cupcakes, wine flights vs. bottles so are more digestible media portions.<br />
Lately the trend towards the pre-curated and the small seems to have multiplied.<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.veryshortlist.com/">Check out the mini email newsletter, growing in popularity: The very short list</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/books/a-good-fit-for-small-screens-short-stories-are-selling.html">NYT points out how well the short story is doing on digital devices, especially when authors offer up very affordable pieces one at a time.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.themillions.com/2005/11/short-shorts-in-your-inbox.html">Or why not get an email with a short story?</a></li>
</ul>
When you are overwhelmed with work and there is everything to do, you actually tend to try and take on less by procrastinating. Therefore the natural human reaction to a glut of new media choices - and literally the full breadth of the classics of the world at our fingertips - has had readers running for smaller controlled media. We filter the news we read, whose Facebook updates we get and don't always click through past a headline or synopsis. What other ways to you cope with media overload? Is it a good or bad trend in media consumption?CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-75869849156811661662013-02-12T07:26:00.003-08:002013-02-15T12:54:49.645-08:00Beauty and the font<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Life on the web is about to get a whole lot prettier. <a href="http://www.webmonkey.com/2013/02/adobe-proposes-new-standard-for-better-web-typography/" target="_blank">Adobe has released a new method to automatically align web text</a> based on a algorithm that not only takes into account potential orphans but actually uses word length to adjust the spaces between words to reduce the large gaps that are over prevalent when simply using the "Justify" feature. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While typography news alone is enough to get me to sit up and listen (<a href="http://www.tothepoint.co.uk/more/fun/shoot_the_serif" target="_blank">fellow font geeks click here</a>), let's add a little bit of theoretical perspective to really wake the class. Do evenly spaced words really matter? Not for comprehension. <a href="http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2141-reading-jumbled-words.html">Msot poelpe cn raed setnecnes regrdlaess of mddile lteter odrer just bsaed on cotnxet. </a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Instead this move, like most other font and layout choices, can be traced back to aesthetics and one of the most classic - that <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080818-body-symmetry.html">subtle symmetry is beautiful</a>.</span></div>
CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-24966893880491335182013-01-04T18:48:00.001-08:002013-01-04T18:48:51.319-08:00Is over-confidence curbing our abilities?
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>180</o:Words>
<o:Characters>1031</o:Characters>
<o:Lines>8</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>2</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>1266</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>11.1287</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotShowRevisions/>
<w:DoNotPrintRevisions/>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: ArialMT; font-size: 13.0pt;">Maybe
it's narcissim, but I'm perpetually fascinated with studies done on my
generation: the millienials. Even our nomenclature sounds epic. MILLENIALS! And
with the oldest subset of us turning 30, employers, advertisers and politicans
are all struggling to figure us out as we become a larger and more powerful
force in society. From how we use social media and the internet to what we do
for community service and how we exercise, date, eat, travel, vote, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: ArialMT; font-size: 13.0pt;">But the
latest study about the younger set points out that our navel gazing could be
determental. In fact, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20756247">the American Freshman Survey</a> found that while self-confidence is on the rise, actual aptitude (measured by
test scores) and hard work (measured in hours studied) has declined.
Embarrassing, but worth a real look. How can you build skills and learn if you
already know it all?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: ArialMT; font-size: 13.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Last night I was lucky enough to be in a <a href="https://buy.louisck.net/tour-dates">Louis CK audience</a> and he warned against celebrating youth. “You don’t have to agree with
what someone who is older than you is saying, but they are saying it from a
place with a lot more data and experience so it’s useful for you to at least
listen.”</span><!--EndFragment-->
CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-24441870629015385822012-11-29T14:00:00.002-08:002012-11-29T14:00:28.740-08:00What can't video games do? Video games are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foldit">saving the world</a>, spurring on <a href="http://www.thrivedetroit.org/gamification-six-ways-to-make-self-improvement-fun/">self-improvement</a>, <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128081896">teaching </a>and now they are art.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://kottke.org/12/11/moma-adds-video-games-to-permanent-collection">The MOMA added 14 games to its collection this week.</a>
My personal favorite definition of art comes from an 8 year-old being interviewed by the BBC: "If the artist says it's art, than it's art."<br />
<br />
But in fact, Video games do not even need the extreme justification of babes. They are not bending the rules of what art is. In fact video games just intensify some of the more important qualities of an art form.<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Playing the senses.</b> A video game engages your emotions as well as your vision, your hearing, your sense of touch. If you have the right gaming snacks: you can add taste and smell to it as well.</li>
<br />
<li><b>It takes a village <i>of artist</i>s.</b> Not only does it take great artistic, programming and story skills to make a good video game, it takes a whole team of people to do it. One question that art critics often ask is does the artwork require a certain caliber of talent to be produced. In the case of games that can take 6 months to years to be produced I would say there's no denying the high level of skill involved.</li>
<br />
<li><b>Interaction is required. </b>Your English literature school teacher may have told you that it is up to you to interpret what Jane Austin or Shakespeare meant. In video gaming it is up to you to determine how much of the world the game creators you will see and in some cases you characters even have a dash of free will.</li>
</ul>
CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-90757518028425189232012-07-21T06:44:00.000-07:002012-07-21T06:51:16.577-07:00The Output Gap and the Hodrick-Prescott FilterI think most people today would agree that the US economy is in bad shape. But things get complicated when you try to pin down exactly what that means. For example, we’re not technically in a recession (defined as two consecutive quarters of falling GDP) and haven’t been since 2010; but with unemployment over 8% it can feel like we are. <br />
<br />
Macroeconomists and policymakers talk about the “output gap,” which is the difference between where the economy is right now and it’s “potential level.” Unfortunately, this potential output is not directly observable, which means it must be estimated. There are several ways of doing this. Some approaches use theoretical models calibrated with information about the current state of the economy; others use statistical relationships between things like unemployment and inflation; finally, other methods simply look at a single variable (e.g. GDP or GNP) and attempt to filter out a trend from the noise. <br />
<br />
Recently, there’s been some heated discussion about the third type of method. It concerns the use of a statistical tool called the “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodrick%E2%80%93Prescott_filter">Hodrick-Prescott Filter,</a>” named for its creators Robert Hodrick and Edward Prescott. The basic idea of the HP filter is to take time series data (for example GDP measured quarterly for a number of years) and split it into a longer-term trend and shorter-term fluctuations. In a sense, it’s similar to a moving average, which smooths out the jagged edges of a time-series. <br />
<br />
To get a little more technical, the HP filter takes a time series $y_t$ and decomposes it into a trend component $\tau_t$ and a cyclical component $c_t$. The HP filter solves the minimization problem: <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
$\textrm{min} \sum^T_{t=1} (y_t - \tau_t)^2 + \lambda \sum^{T-1}_{t=2}[(\tau_{t+1} - \tau_t) - (\tau_t - \tau_{t-1})]^2$ </div>
<br />
The difference between the observed data and the trend is the cyclical component. The term $\lambda$ determines how smooth we want to make the trend. We'll come back to this point later.<br />
<br />
James Bullard, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, has used HP filtered GDP data to argue that the output gap is small, using the following chart (posted at <a href="http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/07/fed-watch-careful-with-that-hp-filter.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EconomistsView+%28Economist%27s+View%29">Economist's View</a>): <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="Output Gaps" src="http://danielcscheer.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/6a00d83451b33869e201774337780d970d-800wi.jpg?w=300" /> </div>
<br />
and arguing:
<br />
<blockquote>
“The housing bubble and the ensuing financial crisis probably did some lasting damage to the economy, suggesting that the output gap in the U.S. is not as large as commonly believed and that the growth rate of potential output is modest. This helps explain why U.S. growth continues to be sluggish, why U.S. inflation has remained close to target instead of dropping precipitously and why U.S. unemployment has fallen over the last year—from a level of 9.1 percent in June 2011 to 8.2 percent in June 2012.”</blockquote>
In contrast, <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/filters-and-full-employment-not-wonkish-really/">Paul Krugman argues</a> that the trend produced by the HP filter is not necessarily a good measure of economic potential:
<br />
<blockquote>
“The use of the HP filter presumes that deviations from potential output are relatively short-term, and tend to be corrected fairly quickly. This is arguably true in normal times, although I would argue that the main reason for convergence back to potential output is that the Fed gets us there rather than some “natural” process.
But what happens in the aftermath of a major financial shock? The Fed finds itself up against the zero lower bound; it is reluctant to pursue unconventional policies on a sufficient scale; fiscal policy also gets sidetracked. And so the economy remains below potential for a long time.
Yet the methodology of using the HP filter basically assumes that such things don’t happen. Instead, any protracted slump gets interpreted as a decline in potential output!”</blockquote>
Krugman’s point is an important one. Remember, the HP filter is a statistical tool for finding a trend in a univariate time-series. It cannot tell us what things would look like in the absence of the housing bubble or in light of different policies. Using the filter to ascertain the level of potential output requires theoretical assumptions like the ones Krugman identified above, which themselves must be established, not merely stated. As <a href="http://newmonetarism.blogspot.com/2012/07/hp-filters-and-potential-output.html">Steven Williamson explains</a>:
<br />
<blockquote>
“What is the economy's "underlying potential" anyway? It's the level of aggregate real GDP that we could achieve if, within the set of feasible economic policies, policymakers were to choose the policy that maximizes aggregate economic welfare. The HP trend is no more a measure of potential than is a linear trend fit to the data. The HP trend was arrived at through a purely statistical procedure... How then could the HP trend be a measure of potential GDP?
To measure potential GDP requires a model. The model will define for us what "feasible economic policies" and "aggregate economic welfare" are. If we used Kydland and Prescott's procedure, above, we might construct a model, calibrate and simulate it, and argue that the model produces time series that fit the actual data. We might then feel confident that we have a good model, and use that model to measure potential output. Maybe the model we fit to the data is a Keyesian model, which implies an active role for monetary and fiscal policy. Maybe it's a model with a well-articulated banking and financial sector, with an explicit role for monetary policy.”</blockquote>
However, Williamson takes issue with Krugman’s piece, arguing that he is misusing the HP filter:
<br />
<blockquote>
“Look at the chart in Krugman's blog post.He's misusing the HP filter here in two ways (though of course what he wants to do is make people who use it look stupid)... he's using a value for [$\lambda$] that's just too small.” </blockquote>
Here's where the $\lambda$ term comes in. The way the HP filter works is that you can set $\lambda$ really small and basically reproduce the curviness of the data; set $\lambda$ really high and fit a more or less straight line; or set it somewhere in between. The rule of thumb that Hodrick and Prescott established is setting $\lambda = 1,600$ for quarterly data and a larger value for higher frequency data. <br />
<br />
Williamson is right that Krugman is using a relatively small value for $\lambda$, as the trend in his graph is rather curvy (though that wouldn't really affect the substance of his point). But what do we really know about $\lambda$? <a href="http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?verb=Display&version=1.0&service=UI&handle=euclid.ejs/1284557751&page=record">An interesting paper</a> from outside the field of ecnonometrics (it was written by two statisticians, Robert L. Paige and A. Alexandre Trindade) suggests, maybe not that much.<br />
<br />
Paige and Trindade show that the HP filter is really just a special case of a larger class of data-smoothing methods called "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spline_(mathematics)">splines</a>." <span style="background-color: white;">While splines have similar parameters to $\lambda$, they are chosen optimally, rather than by rule of thumb. Specifically, spline-fitting algorithms select a value for $\lambda$ based on how well the smoothed function fits the data. The authors show that fitting an optimal value for $\lambda$ has a substantive impact on the resulting trend estimates, which may have important consequences for economic analysis.
Ultimately, while the HP filter has a role to play in economic research and policymaking, consumers of research should maintain a health skepticism toward the tool.</span>Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04892611391600460300noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-89887388383129192832012-07-21T06:38:00.000-07:002012-07-21T06:38:07.214-07:00Discarding failed ideas<br />
There are three types of questions in economics: (1) is it true? (2) is it efficient? and (3) is it good? The first question corresponds to the scientific side of the field. When we are curious about things like the relationship between unemployment and inflation or the determinants of international trade, we are solely concerned with objective, empirical realities.<br />
<br />
The second question corresponds to the engineering side of the field. When economists are engaged in policy analysis or market design, we focus on maximizing some quantity, like utility or output, while minimizing cost.<br />
<br />
Finally, the third question corresponds to the moral philosophy side of the field. We may understand that a relationship exists in the world and may agree on policies that will maximize or minimize one or more of the variables. But we still must grapple with the desirability of a given outcome. For example, what constitutes a just economy? And when is efficiency a worthy goal?<br />
<br />
Consider economic inequality. There is broad agreement that economic inequality has increased throughout the developed world since the 1970s. There is also an understanding that certain policies, such as progressive taxation, can mitigate economic inequality, and that policymakers can nudge an economy in one direction or another. But economists, and the public more generally, are far from in agreement on how much inequality is acceptable in a good society.*<br />
<br />
I use this framework when thinking about whether or not economics should be considered a science. Personally, I think that that is the wrong question. Economics contains scientific <i>questions</i> and those questions can and should be approached scientifically. It is in this regard that I think we have not always succeeded.<br />
<br />
Consider <a href="http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/science-without-falsification-is-no.html" target="_blank">this piece</a> by Noah Smith about the use of falsification in macroeconomics:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
“If smart people don't agree, it may because they are waiting for new evidence or because they don't understand each other's math. But if enough time passes and people are still having the same arguments they had a hundred years ago - as is exactly the case in macro today - then we have to conclude that very little is being accomplished in the field. The creation of new theories does not represent scientific progress until it is matched by the rejection of failed alternative theories...<br />
<br />
So as things stand, macro is mostly a "science" without falsification. In other words, it is barely a science at all. Microeconomists know this. The educated public knows this. And that is why the prestige of the macro field is falling. The solution is for macroeconomists to A) admit their ignorance more often (see <a href="http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/bob-shiller-and-greg-mankiw-stick-up.html" target="_blank">this Mankiw article</a> and <a href="http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/satisfactory-philosophy-of-ignorance.html" target="_blank">this Cochrane article</a> for good examples of how to do this), and B) search for better ways to falsify macro theories in a convincing way.”</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
The goal of science is generating increasingly precise approximations of reality. This can only happen by pruning away the ideas that don’t work.<br />
<br />
To a certain extent, this is a function of the data economists have to work with, especially in macroeconomics. We can’t do experiments at that level and economic systems are fantastically complex. Thus we should expect economics (and indeed most social sciences) to progress slowly. But beyond this, we need to develop a culture of falsification, where ideas that are demonstrated not to be true are discarded, no matter what.<br />
<br />
If you’re theory tells you that what you’re seeing happen cannot happen, then you need a better theory. Until then, there’s no progress to be had.<br />
<br />
*In his book <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FAdams-Fallacy-Guide-Economic-Theology%2Fdp%2F0674027299&ei=SxPvT9aSNarn0QGZn7X7Ag&usg=AFQjCNHf23GfcmflrGrEV9l_fcaFRbwDXw" target="_blank">"Adam's Fallacy,"</a> Duncan Foley doubts that the moral questions can really be severed from the efficiency questions in economics. Specifically, he argues that there is a fallacy within Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations": the idea that we can separate an economic sphere of life, where self-interested behavior leads to the collective good, from the social sphere of life, where purely self-interested behavior is seen as immoral.<br />Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04892611391600460300noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-76025035689558661292012-03-10T13:27:00.000-08:002012-03-10T13:28:09.176-08:00Gas goes up, gas goes down... you can't explain that!<div class="separator tr_bq" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDhyphenhyphenEHe05HTMPzdv6beEiigF-13LAOUuOPWaDHuEUNDMGPq97z4gW2ILZKv71LduvdzS4AUy2mDxE_BJewsh79b6vsG9PRT9sfxeGuNv1HCTLSWvJSuIfQdgeKHJcnWbSqNUgx9QJFUK-c/s1600/oreillycantexplain1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDhyphenhyphenEHe05HTMPzdv6beEiigF-13LAOUuOPWaDHuEUNDMGPq97z4gW2ILZKv71LduvdzS4AUy2mDxE_BJewsh79b6vsG9PRT9sfxeGuNv1HCTLSWvJSuIfQdgeKHJcnWbSqNUgx9QJFUK-c/s1600/oreillycantexplain1.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
My favorite Bill O'Reilly moment came during an interview last year with David Silverman of American Atheists. O'Reilly was arguing that the regularity of phenomena in the universe supported the existence of God.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
O'REILLY: I'll tell you why [religion's] not a scam, in my opinion: tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.<br />
<br />
SILVERMAN: Tide goes in, tide goes out?<br />
<br />
O'REILLY: See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that.</blockquote>
There's nothing better than a guy who calls people he disagrees with "pinheads" revealing his <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/bill-oreilly-thinks-tides-are-proof-">profound ignorance</a> of 8th grade Earth Science.<br />
<br />
This week, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/bill-oreilly-view-contraception_n_1332444.html">O'Reilly went on The View</a>, and when the topic turned to gas prices, O'Reilly criticized the Obama Administration:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
O'Reilly pushed back and said, "gas will be at 8 dollars a gallon." Host Joy Behar jumped in, criticizing O'Reilly's argument. "Americans know that gas prices don't have to do with Obama. It has to do with world affairs. Everybody knows that," she said. "I don't know that. I don't know that," O'Reilly charged.</blockquote>
Whether or not O'Reilly knows it, gas prices <i>are</i> set in a global market. How do we know this? The best evidence is the extent to which gas prices are correlated across different countries. If countries that have different energy policies see gas prices move the same way, then it's clear that they are exposed to the same global market. As the chart below shows, this is most certainly the case:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2016762da2824970b-800wi" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="208" src="http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2016762da2824970b-800wi" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source: U.S. Energy Information Agency</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Given that these countries have differing energy policies, it seems that global economic trends overwhelm domestic concerns. Further, it's not clear what the Obama administration could even do here. The most frequent Republican criticism on this issue is that the U.S. needs to drill more, but the inconvenient truth is that <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/31/307946/drill-baby-drill-failure-obama-growth-in-oil-rigs-high-prices/">U.S. oil production</a> is at its highest level since 2003 and has grown considerably since 2008. Whether or not you think it's a good policy, the charge that the Obama administration opposes domestic drilling is patently false. <br />
<br />
The <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/beat_the_press/~3/9sXe4a3HsJU/oil-prices-are-determined-in-the-world-market-3456-it-is-not-just-something-that-president-obama-says">U.S. accounts</a> for roughly 9% of global oil production, so in order to impact the global price it would need to expand production far beyond any reasonable estimate of remaining reserves. Even then, the increased production would be offset by reduced output from OPEC member states (most of the world's oil is produced by countries with considerable market power). <br />
<br />
So yes, Mr. O'Reilly, gas prices are set in a global market; we <i>can</i> explain that.<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04892611391600460300noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-54614972847993997542012-03-03T17:38:00.000-08:002012-03-03T17:42:40.997-08:00Wait, what was the question again?Controversies involving <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/03/02/has_rush_limbaugh_finally_gone_too_far_in_slut_shaming_sandra_fluke_.html?wpisrc=slate_river">Rush Limbaugh</a> are as simple as they are boring: a guy who gets paid to say mean and offensive things says something mean and offensive, resulting in people being offended. These incidents are not worth the attention they receive, but 24-hour cable news being what it is, we all have to hear about it. <br />
<br />
More interesting (to me, at least) is the line of reasoning used in his and other conservative's arguments. For example, as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/rachel-maddow-rush-limbaugh-birth-control-sandra-fluke_n_1318354.html">Rachel Maddow ably explains</a>, Limbaugh's statements suggest a profound ignorance about the workings of hormonal contraception.<br />
<br />
Beyond the medical issue, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the policy question at hand. Bill O'Reilly, while eschewing Limbaugh's vitriol, questions whether he personally, or society more broadly, should have to pay for people's sexual activities:<br />
<script src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=1485821788001&w=400&h=263" type="text/javascript">
</script><noscript>Watch the latest video at &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="http://video.foxnews.com"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;video.foxnews.com&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;</noscript>
<br />
The question O'Reilly seems to be addressing is whether taxpayers should have to pay for birth control coverage. I think this is an interesting question and one that is worthy of debate. But it is simply not the question that is being addressed here. We are <i>not </i>discussing public provision of contraception, or any other healthcare, for that matter. The question here is whether <i>private</i> insurance companies should be required to cover hormonal contraception as part of their insurance packages. Thus, it is not a question of public spending, but rather one of regulation.<br />
<br />
So if the concern is the cost of providing contraception, then this would reflect higher insurance premiums, not greater public spending. Does covering contraception increase insurance premiums? It doesn't seem like it. A <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060112.html">review of published evidence</a> by the Guttmacher Institute found that, "contraceptive coverage does not raise insurance premiums and that employers providing such coverage can, in fact, save money by avoiding costs associated with unintended pregnancy." Basically the cost of providing contraception is offset by the forgone cost of pre-natal care and delivery services. So Mr. O'Reilly's and Mr. Limbaugh's fears should be allayed.<br />
<br />
With all the charged language and demagoguery, we seem to have lost sight of the topic. Instead, we have commentators denouncing non-existing policies and their imaginary consequences. Sure makes for good ratings, though.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04892611391600460300noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-14081949555258141242011-11-15T20:30:00.000-08:002011-11-16T17:13:20.588-08:00Is U.S. inequality special?In <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/11/british-1-percent.html">this post</a>, Greg Mankiw argues that the U.S. is not the only country to see an increase in inequality over the past 40 years. Referring to a plot of the top income shares in the U.K., Mankiw notes:<br /><blockquote>“The figure suggests that the explanation of growing inequality over the past several decades cannot be U.S.-specific but must have broader applicability... You find a similar U-shaped pattern in Australia, Canada, Ireland, and New Zealand but much less so in France, Germany, Japan, and Sweden.”</blockquote>Mankiw uses the impressive “<a href="http://g-mond.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/topincomes/">Top Incomes Database</a>,” compiled by (among others) Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. It is a fantastic resource; it enables you to plot data on income shares and inequality for a wide-range of countries over more than one-hundred years. Perusing the data, one finds that, in fact, many countries have seen an increase in inequality. But Mankiw seems to be implying that, since this is a global phenomenon, that shifts in U.S. policy aren’t driving the increase in inequality.<br /><br />Using the database, I generated the following graphs: (1) comparing the U.S. with other rich English-speaking countries; and (2) comparing the U.S. with rich, but non-English speaking countries. I chose the countries Mankiw cites as examples in his post. The data covers the period between 1950 and 2007:*<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgvKMT3ge2NiHfdJlrpqcbC7_Kf56-R-KbgDCBrR-GCGgjHnHvuWDkuH3CzpD4Y7CmRDEw813jcYVkzFq48XxtoU_TEnUyxZeUuuy_Mw-yKxs2lkmbF2Rjj8qJ2vwHzWujJZhYhuY4Z_KA/s1600/US+and+AS+Countries.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 304px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgvKMT3ge2NiHfdJlrpqcbC7_Kf56-R-KbgDCBrR-GCGgjHnHvuWDkuH3CzpD4Y7CmRDEw813jcYVkzFq48XxtoU_TEnUyxZeUuuy_Mw-yKxs2lkmbF2Rjj8qJ2vwHzWujJZhYhuY4Z_KA/s400/US+and+AS+Countries.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5675449458288452546" /></a><br /><div>As Mankiw notes, the changes in the top share of incomes for other rich English-speaking countries largely track those of the U.S. It is worth noting the discontinuous jump in the U.S. series in the mid-1980s, coinciding with the reform of the tax system during the Reagan administration.<br /><br />In contrast, the rich non-English-speaking countries do not see much of a change in their top income shares. For example, the share of the top 1% in France was 8.98% in 1950 and 8.94% in 2007. The corresponding numbers for the U.S. are 11.60% and 18.29%. It takes a lot of motivated reasoning to detect an upward trend in the non-English-speaking countries.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif2HEYSC_o6J6TpU-s6ni6e33SWlGh7z2klh0dQRR9EaozzQR4E8rxiPwaGqrMcEByWHyPfhQwBMa10-m5WQrasuG6_X2y9ZeyenxUywJ5Z-P-vani-bRiowlSOYtnvF2cxl6hFQDcm25J/s1600/US+and+non_AS+Countries.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 290px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif2HEYSC_o6J6TpU-s6ni6e33SWlGh7z2klh0dQRR9EaozzQR4E8rxiPwaGqrMcEByWHyPfhQwBMa10-m5WQrasuG6_X2y9ZeyenxUywJ5Z-P-vani-bRiowlSOYtnvF2cxl6hFQDcm25J/s400/US+and+non_AS+Countries.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5675449735591799090" /></a></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><u><br /></u></span></div>To explain the difference between the two groups, Mankiw offers the following idea:<br /><blockquote>“Might the rising share of the top 1 percent be related to the increasing use of English as a global language?”</blockquote>I’m not exactly sure what this means or what the causal mechanism here would be. I would suggest a simpler explanation: English-speaking countries have tended to follow an economic model (often referred to as the “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_economy">Anglo-Saxon Model</a>”) that is more market-driven and relies on a smaller welfare state than the rest of Europe. Thus one should expect those countries to have higher levels of market-income inequality. Further, like the U.S., these countries have reformed their tax systems and de-regulated much of their economy, leading to even greater inequality. So while it’s true that increased inequality is not solely a U.S. phenomenon, it does not follow that policy changes aren’t an important part of the explanation. In fact, countries that have followed similar policies to the U.S. have seen increases in inequality, while those that haven’t, well, haven’t.<br /><br />*I chose the years based on data-availability. I encourage people to play around with the database if they are curious about other countries, years or variables.<br /><br />It is also worth mentioning that the data presented here is pre-tax gross income. Given that other countries have more progressive tax/transfer systems than the U.S., this is likely an underestimate of the difference in inequality between the U.S. and the rest of the rich world. <span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; "></span></div>Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04892611391600460300noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-27864325203505327922011-10-12T05:32:00.000-07:002011-10-12T05:34:12.690-07:00The other 33 percent*Last month, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html">the New York Times article </a>that looked at the cost of junk food as compared with healthy food - pointed out the difference between the two dining options was more often time and convenience than money. The conclusion was dangerous close to "poor fat people are fat because they are lazy."<br />As <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/does-impatience-make-us-fat/2011/10/10/gIQA1eMnaL_blog.html">Ezra Klein pointed out yesterday</a>, there is a very recent study that amends this slightly. The new study concludes "fat people are lazy because they have poor impulse control and are worse at delaying gratification." It essentially found that the heavyset set has gotten heavier but many of the 67% of Americans that are not obese have stayed trim. This is because the obese crowd relies on foods that can be eaten quickly rather than making meals from scratch. <br />What struck me about these findings was how a culture so laden with cooking shows was not producing even more at-home cooking. Perhaps we should abandon the "Ace of Cakes" or Paula Dean for a 21st century Julia Child who's focus is more on frugality and DIY meals rather then peddling pre-made foods or indulging in the rich foods for everyday occasions. <br />Still, as a social worker friend of mine pointed out, often extreme eating problems are related to emotional eating. I think rather then pointing to low self-esteem, our culture's current food problems point to a culture of entitlement. The belief that we each deserve everything we want and we deserve to get it in the quickest, easiest way possible is rampant. It's effected our waistlines, our personal debt and deeply impacted achievement in our school (see: give every child a blue ribbon, since mine deserves to feel like a winner rather than competing for an actual rank).<br /><br />*According to the CDC in 2011 33.8 % of adult Americans are obese.CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-18071902965380344282011-10-10T17:48:00.000-07:002011-10-10T17:51:42.557-07:00The power of oopsMore and more companies are learning the power of straightforward PR tone. Netflix was the latest to adopt this approach <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/netflix_scraps_qwikster_split.html">today</a> when announcing that due to the public outcry they were not going to spin off a DVD mail service called Quikster. <br /><br />I attribute the power of the oops to the same trend that spawned transparency groups such as WikiLeaks and FactCheck.org. Information is too immediate, prevalent and accessible to be overly controlled with your message, especially when it comes to crisis management. Many people in the world have access to news from whatever source they want.<br /><br />During the BP oil spill, the company tried to use the "honest oops" but it didn't work to save their image. Here are some tips on how to pull off a successful corporate oops.<ol><br /><li>Don't wait to address the issue - make a statement as soon as you can</li><br /><li>Offer action or a change that will effect those effected by your mistake</li><br /><li>Send the "oops" message from the very top person in your company</li></ol><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Comedy aside:</span> Eddie Izzard has a bit about the Queen of England on this topic not being able to communicate in this way when managing the news of Diana's death. It's a bit dated but hilarious.<br /><br /><iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qWqGmHQHUJA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-84851269357725199262011-10-09T06:14:00.000-07:002011-10-09T06:17:41.128-07:00Art & Infrastructure Mash-upThere is power from keeping ones voice soft and calm during an argument. Being quiet but holding your ground causes the other person to feel a bit ridiculous shouting at you and often they run out of steam. According to <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_VENEZUELA_TRAFFIC_MIMES">this article</a>, Caracas, Venezuela got a similar result when using mimes as traffic cops. Apparently, the silence professionals are making an impact by injecting the unexpected as well as modeling quiet on the busy streets. <br /><br />So here are some more suggestions on other ways to inject art into our societal infrastructures: <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Playgroup meets courthouse: </span>Would our trials go smoother if everyone started the session with some cookies and juice, wore name tags and had the freedom to pull down a nap mat from the wall if they got tired or cranky? All "it's mine" toy disputes are still decided by the judge.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Tax paperwork meets photojournalism:</span> Similar to a nonprofit appeal, tax payers would get vivid and real photographs of the public spaces and families that are going to benefit from their tax money.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Opera meets utilities:</span> Could mournful arias play anytime you used water or electricity in excess as a reminder of the dwindling resources? You could even add some triumphant fanfare when the offending appliance was turned off. The only downside is it could make showers even longer...<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Punch & Judy meets political debates: </span>Why no one has thought of this yet I do not know. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Comic strips meet public policy:</span> All new bills and laws must also be rendered in comic strip form and distributed to everyone effected by them.CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-16326137834398459942011-09-07T21:09:00.000-07:002011-09-08T04:56:26.640-07:00That used to be youThis evening, I attended a talk through the <a href="http://www.hudsonunionsociety.com">Hudson Union Society</a> given by Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum about their recent book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/That-Used-Be-Us-Invented/dp/0374288909"><i>That used to be us: How America fell behind in the world it invented and how we can come back.</i></a> <br><br>Those of you who read <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/thomaslfriedman/index.html">Friedman’s New York Times column</a>, may be familiar with some if the main points of the book. Namely that there is a global trend towards overpopulation, increased communication and dwindling resources. And that while many predict China may be on the rise to power and the US has mismanaged its economy and slowed on innovation, America should look back at its successes in the past and return to the policy that made it strong while keeping up with communication and green technology.<br><br>The book ends with Freidman and Mandelbaum’s ideal 2012 presidential platform. They are advocating that an independent candidate take up issues of investment in infrastructure and education, spending cuts to Medicare and Social Security and tax increases – perferably related to fuel usage. <br><br>Of course in a situation like this, topdown change often has the greatest impact. However, I would like to take one of the major questions of the evening and apply it to the individual, in particular the 9.1% of Americans that are unemployed. The question to ask is “What were you doing in the past that worked?” When you think about the good things you’ve done it can focus your energy towards repeating those habits and outcomes. There is something very powerful about putting a positive spin on your assessment of the past. Understanding what you have done well can help you make decisions on where you can add the most benefit. Yes, top down change is going to be necessary to change the direction the US is headed, but bottom-up change and a need for individual innovation and reinvigoration is also going to be crucial to our recovery. This isn’t about glossing over what may have gone wrong – but if you’ve had success in the past chances are you can pinpoint what went right and harness that into more future success.CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-36710571493693666592011-08-17T13:09:00.000-07:002011-08-17T19:53:44.473-07:00Of monkeys and men<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #151518; background-color: #ebf2ff"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/science/16obchimp.html?_r=2&ref=observatory">A recent study coming out of Japan</a>, got me thinking about executive functions. Tetsuro Matsuzawa and team found that although human and chimp prefrontal cortexes start out a similar size in infancy, humans' prefrontal cortexes grow faster beginning at a very young age. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #151518; background-color: #ebf2ff; min-height: 15.0px">
<br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #151518; background-color: #ebf2ff"><b>So, what has your frontal lobe done for you lately?</b> It's the portion of our brains' credited with your long-term self image, personality and impulse control. It helps us predict future consequences of our current actions. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #151518; background-color: #ebf2ff; min-height: 15.0px">
<br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #151518; background-color: #ebf2ff; min-height: 15.0px">
<br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #151518; background-color: #ebf2ff">Unfortunately, not every outcome is predictable - as seen in the Rise of the Planet of the Apes trailer:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #151518; background-color: #ebf2ff; min-height: 15.0px">
<br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #151518; background-color: #ebf2ff"><iframe width="450" height="269" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/28Z_D9Grh18" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<br /></p>CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-89319092625529031372011-08-16T14:47:00.000-07:002011-08-16T15:07:31.509-07:00"Multi-tasking is a lie"<div style="text-align: left;">For a little while, the above phrase was my mantra. It's hard not to be tempted to try and cram more into a work day by trying to do two or three things at once. But the result (unless it is walking and chewing gum) is nearly always unimpressive results or failure.</div><div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div><div>Thanks to a recent study from the <a href="http://www.pnas.org/">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a>, we finally have proof in the form of fMRI images that doing two tasks at once decreases decision-making and perception. <a href="http://http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/multitasking-brain-bottlenecks">Read </a><i><a href="http://http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/multitasking-brain-bottlenecks">Wired's </a></i><a href="http://http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/multitasking-brain-bottlenecks">coverage here.</a></div><div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div><div>If you prefer your information in chart form - and frankly - who doesn't? Here is the first in my "You can graph anything" series.</div><div>
<br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Multi-tasking is a lie</b></div><div style="text-align: center;">(where x=number of activities you attempt at once)</div><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 206px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbG7MIPKC69_BohzZZrTnKQkP4q4X0JaQo6L0e061AOg-NbN_kFummErg7hqPK1gIXjk54fO5pYPcICiwXvZj4YsjL4b2FNZ79_CWce-u2o9VnTaafD1GOq8_pno4trH96BCNen5h4KA2o/s320/legend.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5641578486278866162" /><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 305px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZGbo8XsvcIQvM7FK0Y-cjpuYk-RmK6jhq68d6Y23cg5VP3e5M-6w6GOyLgqFQeSlSjc5RA-E4IFKwuBAi9UDRESzF9abaDAVVD3O7xv4xVET3i0fL15VUkNomFqJ3iT0jjIiKpKiaSao6/s400/multitasking+is+a+lie.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5641578175157831090" /><div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-54964489510382355842011-08-05T13:51:00.000-07:002011-08-05T14:04:25.800-07:00Is there another office software more worthy of championship?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">A bit of odd news caught my eye today, </span></span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14401766"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">UK student Rebecca Rickwood beat 228,000 global competitors to win a global competition to find the best user of Microsoft's Excel software. </span></span></a><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">While the contents sounds a bit like a publicity stunt for the technology giant, I'll be the first to admit that once you start using Macros Excel can get pretty complicated. I've built spreadsheets that I thought were worthy of some kind of trophy (preferably made of chocolate).</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Here are additional software contests I'd like to see:</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"></p><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium; "> Make a Powerpoint deck that actually balances information and entertainment (the use of sound effects and motions are strictly prohibited) </span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium; "> Make a consistently formatted text file with embedded charts that your co-workers can edit without destroying all the formatting</span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium; "> Air brush a photo of yourself you are happy with in 10 minutes or less with the photo software of your choice</span></li></ul><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">What's your software challenge of choice?</span></span></div><p></p> </div>CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-40674138086802221172011-03-25T11:43:00.000-07:002011-03-25T11:52:47.129-07:00A handy checklist<a href="http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/how-to-have-a-rational-discussion/">Brandon Scott Gorrell at Thoughtcatalog</a> posted an incredible graphic earlier this month about how to have a rational discussion. I've shared it below...I suggest you have it handy on your smartphone in case you run into any zealots on the street.<div><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiow_bQ-QJmlRAWTdWMnQg_cqq2r9K2liYrij86Lvr8yBs1PrP8x_e33fnxwgjNbVIfq4bfLLQNvc9LBPETkBXiBad2ZhxiRuPPuNzM1mORsCgFwWa5nKejvWd2-vRh0TZPd5_0WxgqlB-Z/s1600/A-Flowchart-to-Help-You-Determine-if-Yoursquore-Having-a-Rational-Discussion.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 287px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiow_bQ-QJmlRAWTdWMnQg_cqq2r9K2liYrij86Lvr8yBs1PrP8x_e33fnxwgjNbVIfq4bfLLQNvc9LBPETkBXiBad2ZhxiRuPPuNzM1mORsCgFwWa5nKejvWd2-vRh0TZPd5_0WxgqlB-Z/s400/A-Flowchart-to-Help-You-Determine-if-Yoursquore-Having-a-Rational-Discussion.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5588091993939567186" /></a><div><div><br /></div></div></div>CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-13132448064794866592011-03-17T13:40:00.000-07:002011-03-17T13:44:39.057-07:00An end to self-contained news?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I was inspired by </span></span><a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/16/how-blogs-have-changed-journalism"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Felix Salmon's recent comparison of blog writing to traditional journalism</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> to consider whether the shift is aiding or hindering our ability to stay informed about the news.<br />From Salmon's blog:</span></span><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Traditional media outlets, by contrast [to blogs], generally have an incomprehensible love affair with Microsoft Word... It’s generally more difficult to insert links, especially when I’m dealing with people who edit for print first and who then just put that edited copy up online. The pieces have to be much more self-contained, and you have to be much more careful about assuming any kind of expertise on the part of your readers: if they’re reading your stuff on paper, then it’s much harder for them to Google anything they don’t understand.</span></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Increasingly we're seeing the major news outlets embrace the blogger approach to the news, using social media tools to harness. The most recent example is today's </span></span><a href="http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/the-times-announces-digital-subscription-plan"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">New York Times decision to structure its pay wall so that shared links on Facebook and Twitter will still be accessible. </span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> One of my favorite mainstream uses of social media is the BBC World Service which uses its </span></span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/have_your_say"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Have your Say forum</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> as a way to get first-person accounts of global events and varying political and religious opinions which it then sites and uses in its news, radio and television coverage. It's a modern extension of a news tip hotline but due to the global nature of its audience has an amazing reach that spans its 24-hour news cycle. A third example of just how ubiquitous social media and blogs have become to news reporting is the launch of Google Realtime and the search engine's use of blog posts and Twitter feeds next to larger media sources.<br /><br /></span></span><bf><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Do we give anything up by using a mass of often anonymous or unveiled sources to get the latest information?</span></span></bf><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> Though I have heard several arguments against crowd-sourcing its benefits outweigh any concerns of misinformation or libel. Namely this is because in addition to the ability of accessing ongoing updates to any issue from all over the globe, the depth of any story or issue that becomes available is phenomenal. As Salmon points out on the web one can instantly search for more information or explore related links.</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br />Today's social media world is a bit like Orwell's Animal Farm, </span></span><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">all sources are equal but some are more equal than others</span></span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">. Big publishing names, trusted bloggers and the recommended links from your friends are the the winning sources.<br /><br /></span></span><bf><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So what's next for social news reporting?</span></span></bf><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> So if news sites are now custom serving content, using anonymous web sources and choosing their headliners based on what's most popular - where do we go from here in terms of crowd-sourcing? More importantly, when it comes to information is it ok to give the people only what they want? There's arguably a 10:1 ratio of Charlie Sheen articles to those on sustainable agriculture. How do we maintain the balance between interesting information and useful information? In the future will every story come with a litany of opinion, reaction, re-reaction and YouTube parodies? <br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Georgia, serif;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></div>CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-16586780482969831982011-03-12T20:11:00.000-08:002011-08-17T20:07:48.707-07:00Has Google found the algorithm for good management?<div>Not yet. Google has spent the last two years analyzing performance reviews, feedback surveys and nominations for top-manager awards in order to identify the most significant phrases of praise or complaints. </div><div><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/business/13hire.html">According to the New York Times</a>, "Google executives say they aren’t crunching all this data to develop some algorithm of successful management."</div><div>It did however, identify 8 core principles of good management. The results are not shocking: managers who take time to communicate, who respect their employees, who do not micromanage all do best. </div><div>What is new here is the idea that a company can use data to garner what makes an effective manager. Will these Google characteristics become the norm because they are "verifiable" through data? Will the company continue to segment its results by department type or employee characteristics? While it's interesting to read the results of studies like this and no one can deny the importance of a good manager in a work environment I can't help but think that bringing too much data in to this is overkill. </div><div>
<br /></div>CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-72299968148433778652011-03-11T14:40:00.000-08:002011-03-11T14:44:10.249-08:00What has promise to succeed?<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times">This week <i>The Wall Street Journal </i>ranked what it thought were<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576190644237905576.html"> the top US venture-backed companies with promise to succeed. </a></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times">Some of the trends in what they chose are a bit telling about where our future is headed. Half of the companies were related to media, web or communications technology. Meanwhile 20% of the companies were healthcare related either bio-tech or healthcare management. </p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times">Most telling, was that 32% of the companies dealt with issues of data protection, data processing and security. As every individual has access to the internet and the ability to create and publish content of their own (damn those pesky bloggers!) the data generated is overwhelming. Interestingly when you combine the need for organized, actionable data with trends of personalizations and communication you get something like <a href="https://www.yammer.com">Yammer</a> - one of my favorite companies on the list. Yammer is a new tool that creates a corporate or organizational social network aimed at allowing people to connect and transfer information quickly and securely. In office environments where more people are on the go, working from home or collaborating with people in other offices all over the world--- it's important to get the productive communication flow right.</p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times">There were some glaring category omissions from the list, namely companies aimed at improving education and the environment. These are two categories that could use new ideas and innovation and the support of venture funds and the Washington Post. I did not note any companies on the list that were aimed at improving education. There were three that improve the environment. The last, again a personal favorite, is a bit of stretch in terms of how environmentally friendly it is. <a href="http://www.etsy.com">Etsy</a> is an online vintage and homemade marketplace. The rationale being that reusing vintage items or valuing handmade goods will eventually reduce our consumption and manufacturing of new goods that require new resources. Like I said, it's stretch!</p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times">Which company from the list get your vote? What areas do you think we need more development and investment to improve our future?</p><p></p><div><span style="font: 13.0px Arial; color: #0e774a"><br /></span></div>CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-50887267274594775202011-02-23T12:23:00.000-08:002011-02-23T12:24:42.513-08:00Metaphor: Is there any other way to talk science?<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial"><br />I was struck today by New York Times' reporter Dennis Overbye's use of metaphor to report scientists' pursuit on other planets for the origin of life on Earth. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/science/22origins.html">His piece</a> evokes Eden as a metaphor for the hot primordial gunk where the first particles meshed to create living organisms. The metaphor instantly calls to mind the dawn of existence, a bountiful variety that subsequently sprung from its many mutations and a specific location outside of the Earth we know today.<br /><br />In fact, most of our scientific understanding is neatly described through common or allegorical metaphors. <bf> Atoms </bf> are building blocks that operate like orbiting planetary systems. <bf>The Internet </bf>is a web of information, your browser accesses a series of packets to load a web page. <bf>String theory</bf> is built on the metaphor of electrons and quarks as strings. In <bf>physics</bf> gravity pulls us, in <bf>immunology</bf> microbes carry bacteria and in <bf>chemistry</bf> molecules bounce while heat flows.<br /><br />Metaphor is a cognitive coping mechanism that helps us contemplate and understand phenomena that we can't see. Taken too literally, scientific metaphors can prevent us from truly observing all of the important details or attributes of a phenomenon and prevent further scientific discovery. What metaphors do you rely on to talk about science?<br /></p>CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-29764854517552434452011-01-04T11:16:00.000-08:002011-01-04T13:14:59.101-08:00In the Heights of NYC culture<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Just in time for the end of its Broadway run, I saw Tony-winning musical In the Heights, last evening. It was fantastic - if you haven't seen it or even if you have </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">corre</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, don't walk, to catch it before it closes January 9. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">What struck me most was how the "NYC-ness" of the show goes beyond merely being set in Washington Heights. Unlike Rent or West Side Story, the show does not hesitate to get very inside baseball with its references to the GWB, the 9 train and ConEdison's ineptitude. Three overarching themes in particular:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"></p><ul><li><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">A textured city.</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> Whether it's lead and lyricist </span><span style="font: 13.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Lin-Manuel Miranda'</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">s urban wordsmithing, the ethnic diversity of cast and characters, the bilingual songs and dialogue, the gritty set or the cacophonous medley of musical genres, the chaos, depth and multiculturalism scream through each minute of the show.</span></li></ul><ul><li><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">You hate it but its home.</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> Main character Usnavi is not enamored with New York. In fact no one in the play is. But it is comfortable, and when you consider leaving you begin to realize what and who you will miss. This has also been my experience over the last 4 years that I've lived here. We all live here because there are jobs and things to do - but we deride the noise, the smell and the crowds. When I leave these are the very things I notice are missing. </span></li></ul><ul><li><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">"If I can make it there…"</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> Things in NYC do not often come easy. With more jobs, come more job applicants and the standard of long workdays. With more cultural experiences, come the crowds, the prices and the burden of choice. And with more neighborhoods come the multi-lingual street signs and maze of train and bus routes. While good things happen in the play and you do leave with a warm and fuzzy feeling - there's something very gratifying about the fact that not every major conflict has been wrapped up neatly in a bow.</span></li></ul> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Good art is always a cultural signifier and in an increasingly global community it becomes even more important that communities get as specific as possible with their depictions in order to capture the idiosyncrasies of a society that's becoming increasing homogenous.</span></p>CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-79021936017094699532010-12-02T11:14:00.001-08:002010-12-03T22:22:56.126-08:00Creationism: You cost America a healthy economy<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">While I try to be a tolerant and respectful atheist, it's difficult not to cringe when I see headlines about creationism being passed off as science in public schools or other buildings. </span></span><a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/02/kentucky-creationism-theme-park-dinosaurs"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Today's news from Kentucky caused such a reaction.</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> It's unimaginable to spend $37.5 M public funds on a creationist theme park and I shudder to think that families might visit when it open in 2014 seeking an educational experience. </span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Beyond the utter insanity and obstinate ignorance that it requires to assert </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">the Earth was created in six days, just 6,000 years ago, and that at one time, man and velociraptor co-existed peacefully, creationism perpetuates a departure from investigation, curiosity and experimentation that is crippling our nation's scientific development. </span></span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Is it fair to make the leap from bad science in our schools to failed businesses across our country? Yes. Schools that ask students to take things on faith, that do not teach the scientific method, that deny decades of evidence, teach students to accept what they are told by authority. How can we expect these same students to develop the technology and theories that will break the cycle of fossil fuel dependence, reduce federal debt and revitalize our economy? How can we expect these students to question their political leaders and their banks to plan for a stable future not driven by greed or based on short-term economics? Perhaps if we pray on it...</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">It's been <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp">estimated</a> that nearly </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">20 % of high school science teachers teach and believe in creationism. An additional 15% present evolution and creationism as equal "theories" of life. This misuse of public money must stop. The US public school system was initially built to train model factory employees at the turn of the 20th century. Today our school system has a larger burden - namely training the future scientists, business leaders and innovators for our culture. </span></span></span><div><br /></div></div></div>CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664190527081896928.post-62300070784889274892010-12-01T09:13:00.000-08:002011-04-21T10:58:31.813-07:00Zadie Smith takes on Facebook<p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; font: 12px Times;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Author Zadie Smith questioned the impact of Facebook on our society in a recent </span><a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/25/generation-why/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">New York Books Review piece</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">. She aptly points out that the service was designed "by a Harvard sophomore with a Harvard sophomore’s preoccupations." An explanation for the shallow, straightforward and consumer-centric lists, declaration of status and "show me" onus of photos. This perpetuates an attitude of what Smith calls reduced personhood. She sees it infiltrating the web...and all pop media.</span><br /></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; font: 12px Times;"></p><blockquote>I am dreaming of a Web that caters to a kind of person who no longer exists. A private person, a person who is a mystery, to the world and—which is more important—to herself. Person as mystery: this idea of personhood is certainly changing, perhaps has already changed.</blockquote><p></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; font: 12px Times;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">So why is Facebook so popular? Smith briefly points out, it's due to the advertisers. "To the advertisers, we are our capacity to buy, attached to a few personal, irrelevant photos," she says. The idea recalls Marshall McLuhan's theory - asserting that reality itself, not just the message, is morphing to fit the medium. Leaving us with the question - are we merely what we say we are? Or as Smith suggests, is the depth of human individuality more complex than status updates can project?</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span><em></em></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; font: 12px Times;"></p><br /><p></p>CWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05659688654057889460noreply@blogger.com1