Funny Things To Say At A Wedding

kamikaze


Human behavior is one of the materials (despite what some psychologists say) less malleable and more difficult to treat in existence. If you want to solve a problem with your car, take it by your mechanic, and chances are good that will fix it. If he loses the sink, call a plumber. It will cost you an arm and a leg, but the sink after work correctly. But if you have a problem to deal with a person, or even worse, with a mass of people, a community began to call all of you know, even those ever (you never know).

Not that it's impossible to make someone what you want, just that sometimes it is less easy than it seems, and there are often unforeseen consequences and repercussions of our "strategy", because human behavior is a very complex thing which does not correspond to strict mechanical laws. One of the most rich in examples is that of traffic, explored with some skill in the popular book by Tom Valberbilt Trafficologia .

Suppose a road as dangerous because it appears too narrow and busy and you decide to remedy doubling the track: the most likely outcome, although paradoxically, this remedy is an increase in the number of road accidents on that stretch street. And this is precisely the cause of the increased perception of security, which is too loose the attention of the driver, which then starts to run faster and do more accidents. In other words, a road is more secure, less the is.

Not only will the road more dangerous, but probably will not even solved the problem of congestion, because as soon as we will spread the voice of many more drivers will decide to take that route first, instead of making an alternative, and thus the number total machines running on that stretch will increase thwarting what was achieved by doubling the track. Not to mention that the new road can attract investment and real estate along its path (a citizen could decide, for example, that that road now that there might also be worth going to live twenty kilometers outside the center), and then again trafffico.

Per risolvere il problema del traffico, quindi, occorre un'altra strategia. Una potrebbe essere quella di convincere tutti a fare un uso maggiore di mezzi pubblici, o della bici, o addirittura andare a piedi, facendo appello alla responsabilità personale e al senso di sacrificio. È un approccio che ha scarse possibilità di successo, come si può immaginare. Le persone sono mediamente egoiste, e non sacrificano volentieri il loro interesse personale per il bene comune, a meno che non siano estremamente ben motivate, tipo i kamikaze giapponesi, che forse però non rappresentano un esempio troppo positivo. Il noto "dilemma del prigioniero", in teoria dei giochi, illustra come questa ricerca del proprio tornaconto possa ritorcersi against us, without persuading us to change our approach.

People respond to incentives, and then, since they tend to think for themselves, a way to force them to change their attitude would be to tax the road. This one could not even define an illiberal measure, because it would simply be to charge individuals in the common resource used by them to the detriment of the community. It is well-known problem of "externalities": some of our actions inevitably have costs (or sometimes even benefits) for others. If I decide to make an orgy at my house at night with six minor Cubist drunk, then maybe the neighbors complain for noise, not to mention traces of vomit and other organic debris on the landing. If I decide to take a road during rush hour, I understand that my action will contribute to general traffic congestion: the ideal would be that fewer people are circulated in order to keep the road clear for others, but who decides who move and those who do not? By introducing a toll (perhaps proportional to their level of congestion in a given time) we made sure that only those who most need to address that cost, however, and he will draw benefit from extra time.

But even this approach of incentives, although most sensible and rational in the previous, does not guarantee results sure, because we talked about the unpredictability, and may even have side effects. An example (taken from an actual case): In a primary school many parents have a tendency to occur later than the closing time to come and take the children, forcing staff to wait for them. The management decides to establish a minor penalty for arriving late, so as to encourage punctuality. Well, the likely outcome of such a strategy is an increase in delays. The introduction of fine parents free from guilt and incentive for the delay, in effect, to rub: after all, are paying to keep children in school over time. A small reminder of the fact that people are not automatons, and social engineering is not a simple science.

Or, better yet, someone could invent a new means of transport. A cheaper version of the reach of all the transporter of Star Trek, for example, would solve a lot of problems. Unfortunately the current state of science does not seem very close to a discovery like this, so we have hope in something less definitive (but do not despair into something that can improve the existing, at least).

As you know, there is a certain problem that keeps many people awake, which is that in recent decades, the global temperature of the planet seems to have raised a few tenths of a degree, which increases could be caused dall'attività umana, e dal rilascio nell'atmosfera di sostanze (i gas serra) che intrappolano il calore solare nell'atmosfera e non gli permette di disperdersi nel cosmo. Fino a qualche anno fa lo scetticismo su tali affermazioni aveva delle giustificazioni, ma oggi il consenso sulla realtà effettiva del riscaldamento è molto vasto, e anche quello sull'impatto dell'attività umana, mentre persiste, a mio avviso giustamente, una certa resistenza all'allarmismo, per non dire catastrofismo, di certi ambientalisti, e ai rimedi proposti da alcuni di loro.

Uno di essi, forse il più famoso di tutti, ovvero Al Gore, ha ricevuto anche un premio Nobel, quindi si potrebbe pensare che la soluzione che egli prospetta al problem is the most pragmatic and effective, and the one with the greatest chance of working. In fact, guess what Al Gore proposed solution? He says that we must all become better people, be more sensitive than the good of the planet, stop polluting and stop the race for progress and material prosperity. And maybe put a bandana on his head and shouting "Banzai!" as we sacrificed for the cause. A genius, of course.

The problem with global warming, which has not yet found an effective incentive system that promises real results, and that is both fair enough. In the sense that after having benefited for more than two centuries since the Industrial Revolution would be a bit ' inelegant by Western nations, claiming that countries like India and China will behave in a more virtuous and responsible (perhaps by threatening sanctions) and give up their economic growth. Not to mention that may be too late, and that even if we succeed with a titanic effort to reduce to almost zero emissions of greenhouse gas effects would be seen, perhaps, a few decades. It is difficult to commit an entire planet to a great sacrifice in view of the results by no means guaranteed, and long term. We can speak of selfishness as you want, but with the rationality that we should take.

Or we can invent the equivalent of teleportation and solve the problem of global warming globale (quasi) senza sforzo. È l'approccio della geo-ingegneria che, ahimè, non sembra molto ben visto da molti ecologisti. Per esempio, e secondo quanto prospettato, fra gli altri che se ne occupano, nell'ultimo capitolo di Superfreakonomics (il seguito del bestseller di Steven Levitt e Stephen Dubner), si potrebbe riempire la stratosfera con relativamente modeste quantità di biossido di zolfo (che avrebbe l'effetto di riflettere i raggi solari e quindi raffreddare il pianeta). Come? con un piccolo tubo, ovviamente il più leggero possibile, tenuto su con dei palloni. Di primo acchito sembra un po' fantascientifico, ma fra le soluzioni studiate potrebbe essere la più economica e pratica, e avrebbe un costo minimo, soprattutto se confrontato con gli enormi costi degli accordi di Kyoto. Oppure, se non piace, si potrebbe aumentare artificialmente la quantità di nuvole negli oceani sparando ad alta quota i nuclei di condensazione (il sale marino) adatti alla formazione delle nubi (che rifletterebbero, ancora una volta, i raggi solari).

Rimedi che sono visti come eresie da moltissima gente (compreso il genio premio Nobel di cui sopra, Al Gore) per il fatto che… non sta bene alterare il naturale equilibrio del pianeta. Ma perché, fino ad ora cos'abbiamo fatto? non è proprio perché (a quanto si dice) abbiamo immesso troppi gas serra in atmosfera che ci troviamo in questa situazione? si dice anche che the remedy may have, even in this case (as well as ecosystems are complex) effects of unplanned and potentially catastrophic. To which this objection does not take into account is that in a sense it is instead of remedies already tested. Sulfur dioxide gas is also not the most effective way to cool down the atmosphere but it is what is sometimes shooting into the stratosphere by volcanoes erupting, getting quite a cooling of global climate. The idea is simply to not wait for a fortuitous series of catastrophic eruptions, but ourselves to enter the required amount of sulfur dioxide (process control and stop at any time).

As for the other idea (increasing cloud cover over the oceans) is what is already happening, in part, thanks to the contrails of the aircraft, which seems to have just some anti-heating (chemtrails conspiracy theorists, here's a bone to gnaw) .

These remedies, again, that appear to cause an immediate movement of revulsion in most people (just do a search on "geoengineering" and read a bit 'comments to turn), and therefore could not fail because it is intrinsically unsuitable, but because politically unfeasible. Yet, I find it very amusing that the greater the degree of catastrophe against possible future scenarios, the more skepticism nei confronti di questo tipo di rimedi: "Moriremo tutti! ma non fate niente, perché sarebbe peggio, preghiamo e basta". Questa naturalmente non è scienza, è millenarismo. È una religione fondamentalista, non troppo diversa dal fanatismo dei kamikaze di una volta.

Polskie Biuro Ksiegowe, Cennik

magnificent and progressive



Nel 1950, la percentuale di americani occupati in professioni manageriali e tecniche era del 17%, mentre nel 2000 era quasi il doppio, cioè il 33,5%. Questo significa che nel 1950 certe professioni, sicuramente ambite, appartenevano solo all'élite, e che richiedevano capacità particolari per potervi approdare. Siccome esiste una forte correlazione fra quoziente d'intelligenza e posizione social we can be sure that in 1950 for belonging to that 17% of people needed an IQ less elitist, corresponding to an average score of 114.5, and a minimum of 104.

becomes higher the percentage of employees in these areas become less elitist (of course), which means but also significantly lowers the IQ required to participate. The percentage for the year 2000, in fact, corresponds to an average IQ of 110.5 and a minimum of 98. Four points per game fewer than in 1950. The question is whether today's managers are less intelligent on average than those of 1950, means that their jobs are worse?

In fact, this is a way to put the matter that makes us understand a little 'better than what we mean when we talk about "IQ" (a topic that I have covered ) and which makes a great introduction to the fascinating phenomenon that is " Flynn effect. " The score I get in an intelligence test is not an absolute measure of my intellectual ability, but he says just as I place myself in the population that has the same age as me, if you are in that 2% of people with high scores (and then I have right to be part of the Mensa club), or return to a more modest 50%, or even below the average.

People who have been tested in 2000 can not be compared with those tested in 1950, which is not possible to conclude that, having obtained lower scores, then they have less intelligence (this, of course, regardless of whether the intelligence tests are reliable measures of note that mysterious quality called "intelligence"). All I can conclude is that many more people than in 1950, have the qualities required to gain access to professional managerial tasks. In reality, this would not be possible if there had been an increase in the average intelligence of the population (otherwise, where they would be caught all those managers?).

In fact, if the subject of 2000 was presented with the same IQ test the subjects' of 1950, we have seen an amazing average score of even 130 points (approximately), which would have been geniuses, but, again, only compared to the population of 1950. The intelligence tests, in fact, are reviewed periodically just to keep account of these differences, and the fact that the population seems to grow from year to year, "smarter", with an increase of about 0.3% per year. Three points per decade, and thirty points higher than at the beginning of the century, which means that today those who have average intelligence would have been a genius in 1900, and who today be classified, according to the score, as a mentally retarded man, would have been perfectly normal one hundred years ago.

The thing also has unpleasant and tragic implications: the U.S. is considered unconstitutional to condemn to death a person suffering from mental retardation (with an IQ less than 70), but to be considered delayed or not may depend on the circumstances, chance, to what has updated the test to which he has undergone. If the test is obsolete, this may result in two or three points more, which does not make much difference in almost any area, except in the case, where exactly can mean the difference between life and death.

But where does all this general increase of intelligence, which is unlikely, in such a short period of time, can be attributed to genetic causes (which ever the case be against, as are the people with lower IQs to reproduce more often)? The answer, I think, is just the beginning of this post: the company requires it, simply. This also means that what is measured by tests, whatever it is, is much more sensitive to environmental stress than was thought possible. The IQ is not designed, in fact, be a measure of the cultural background of an individual, but in theory should measure mental qualities that are independent from education received.

But is not that difficult to understand, once we reflect on, as is the evolution of a society as a whole, leads to profound changes in cultural and anthropological going to affect even in measurements of IQ. Think of the living conditions of most people in the early twentieth century. People who rarely saw pieces of the world beyond their own country, and were hardly able to conceptualize an experience that went beyond their immediate experience. People, above all, very concrete and anchored to the present, and therefore might have difficulties in abstract, hypothetical reasoning, which is precisely what is required per superare brillantemente un test d'intelligenza. La maggior parte di noi non ha particolari problemi nel fare uso della logica al di là di referenti concreti e specifici e nell'intrattenersi, anche per puro divertimento, in ragionamenti estremamente ipotetici, ma non possiamo aspettarci davvero che un contadino dell'inizio del secolo scorso, per quanto sveglio, messo di fronte alla sequenza di immagini in apertura del post, sia in grado di, o anche semplicemente interessato a, indovinare quale figura sia "logicamente" la successiva (ah, io non l'ho saputo risolvere).

Lo psicologo sovietico Lurija negli anni '70 raccolse alcune interviste a contadini abitanti in remote zone della Russia, che ci fanno forse capire quanto certe abitudini mental not to give too much for granted (cited and translated the book by James Flynn, What is Intelligence? ):

D. Where there is snow all the bears are white, in Novaya Zemlya there is always snow, what color are the bears there?
A: I have only seen bears, blacks, and I do not speak of things that I have not seen.
Q: What does this mean what I say?
A: If a person was not there can not say anything based on the words.

Q: In Germany there are no camels in Germany is the city B, there are camels in the city B?
A: I do not know, I never saw a German village. If B is a large city, should esserci cammelli.
D: Ma se non ce ne fosse nessuno in tutta la Germania?
R: Se B è un villaggio, probabilmente non c'è posto per i cammelli.

Non è che i contadini intervistati da Lurija non riconoscano le implicazioni e non sappiano fare un sillogismo, è solo che il loro atteggiamento pragmatico gli impedisce di prendere in considerazione situazioni meramente ipotetiche e di raggiungere conclusioni sulla base di premesse inconsistenti. Un atteggiamento anche sensato, che però non aiuta ad ottenere buoni punteggi nei test d'intelligenza, e sicuramente non aiuterebbe neanche a superare brillantemente un colloquio di lavoro alla Microsoft (famosa per i suoi quiz assurdi ed estremamente impegnativi durante i talks, such as: "How long would it take to take away all the land of Mount Fuji, the rate of one truck per minute?").

What has freed our minds from the slavery of the concrete and the immediate present, in addition to mass education, were the new media, newspapers, radio, television and now computers, the Internet, and videogames . And then the cultural revolution that led to everything. Most of our peers have at least a smattering of scientific knowledge, and learned to look through the lens of rational and scientific thinking. It's not just the fact that everyone can read and write and do basic arithmetic operations (which already is no small thing) to having emancipated, but the fact that each of us can have an opinion, whether right or wrong, on things like the economic policy of our government, Obama on health care reform, foreign policy of Israel, and to form those opinions are forced to think about what they're saying newspapers and TV, and then see something of à tip of your nose.

And the fact, too, that each of us is forced to use tools that have some degree of cognitive complexity, and that in many cases these instruments are with us for life, instead of school education that is often forgotten . Those who learn to use a computer just to browse or use email, or playing Tetris, acquire the skills or habits of mind that hardly lose, and they are the ones that can help you have a good IQ, and find a job. And if the work environment, in turn, is cognitively challenging, the advantage gained will be preserved for a lifetime.

The question we must ask is whether this is true glory. Acquired empirical fact, it seems now established beyond any doubt that there have been these advances in IQ (and even if we now expect to be coming to a stop or reversal of the trend, because it is not reasonable that such progress last forever), we can truly speak of an increase in intelligence, in a non-trivial way (ie to the tautology that intelligence is what is measured by a test)?

I doubt it. Not because I was not happy about the fact that some cognitive tools are now more widespread and more affordable for many people who once were excluded, but simply for the fact that it is still a mere instrument, which can be used well or badly . In a sense, the same factors that lead many people to appreciate, I know, the beauty of the solar system and the physical laws that make existence possible, bring others to make the chemtrail conspiracy theories, or those that the Pentagon was never hit by a plane. Or makes viewers of Quark, but also those of Voyager. Produces the readers of Gödel, but also those of Derrida. About

formula or those who believe in some conspiracy theories are stupid, without appeal, but will not necessarily result in such an intelligence test. The advantage of ignorant peasants and pragmatic than once that they had not much time to waste on this crap, lucky them. It follows that, even beyond some moralizing, not enough to provide some tools in education, but it is also the case of worrying about how they can be used. Not enough to teach biology, but should perhaps find a way to prevent a student to be seduced by the creationist theories, or from homeopathy. Not enough to teach economics, but we must find a way in which our schools do not come out of seigniorage. Otherwise, we regret the stupidity of our ancestors.