Sunday, 1 March 2009
Saturday, 28 February 2009
My new big TV
I saw that big screen TV at the local electronics store, and I fell in love. It had so many inches that I can not even remember how many. I have to buy it, I said to myself, looking at the TV from now on will be like looking through the window to a world in real scale. At that time I could not even image the ruin that love affair would cause to my life.
I went home, I prepared a space in my living room for the big TV, the price would be no problem, I can pay it in comfortable monthly instalments, just a couple of hundreds a month for a year or so, what is that, nothing really. I was ready to go to the store when I realized, that the TV will never fit in my car. How could I not have thought about that before? I wanted to have the big window to the world but I was living in a small world on my own, how could I be so blind that I did not think about that before. I rush to the car dealer and saw a big SUV of the right size for my new life, I did not have the money to pay for it, but asking for credit was so easy. I got the credit and I got the car and I drove straight to the electronics shop to pick my new TV. I know that you can get the TV delivered to your place, but my life was growing from that of a small man in a small world to a big sized life and during these processes you have to do the things by yourself.
I went home and with some help from my neighbour I got my TV installed in the living room. It was only then that I realized that there was something that did not fit. The living room was too small for such a big TV, I tried to rearrange the furniture to get better angles, but nothing I tried would work. Damm! I need a bigger living room - I thought. Well, after all were not all my acquaintances moving into bigger houses? It was even an investment, they all said. So there I was, moving into a better neighbourhood, what a house, the perfect setting for my new TV... how good did my car look parked outside. Finally my life had gone bigger. And how easy it was, just ask for credit, buy the house on a mortgage and a few months later I was even able to re-mortgage the house which left me with some cash for a very nice holiday. After all that had been a period of changes and I needed some rest.
I have no house now, I have lost my TV and my car, I owe money to a bank that is not even the bank that lent it to me (that one has disappeared). I am writing this from an Internet Cafe, listening to aged New Age music and wondering if any of my friends will give me shelter for another week... the problem is that they all live in these little apartments with almost no free space, small like the one I once had.
I went home, I prepared a space in my living room for the big TV, the price would be no problem, I can pay it in comfortable monthly instalments, just a couple of hundreds a month for a year or so, what is that, nothing really. I was ready to go to the store when I realized, that the TV will never fit in my car. How could I not have thought about that before? I wanted to have the big window to the world but I was living in a small world on my own, how could I be so blind that I did not think about that before. I rush to the car dealer and saw a big SUV of the right size for my new life, I did not have the money to pay for it, but asking for credit was so easy. I got the credit and I got the car and I drove straight to the electronics shop to pick my new TV. I know that you can get the TV delivered to your place, but my life was growing from that of a small man in a small world to a big sized life and during these processes you have to do the things by yourself.
I went home and with some help from my neighbour I got my TV installed in the living room. It was only then that I realized that there was something that did not fit. The living room was too small for such a big TV, I tried to rearrange the furniture to get better angles, but nothing I tried would work. Damm! I need a bigger living room - I thought. Well, after all were not all my acquaintances moving into bigger houses? It was even an investment, they all said. So there I was, moving into a better neighbourhood, what a house, the perfect setting for my new TV... how good did my car look parked outside. Finally my life had gone bigger. And how easy it was, just ask for credit, buy the house on a mortgage and a few months later I was even able to re-mortgage the house which left me with some cash for a very nice holiday. After all that had been a period of changes and I needed some rest.
I have no house now, I have lost my TV and my car, I owe money to a bank that is not even the bank that lent it to me (that one has disappeared). I am writing this from an Internet Cafe, listening to aged New Age music and wondering if any of my friends will give me shelter for another week... the problem is that they all live in these little apartments with almost no free space, small like the one I once had.
Saturday, 17 January 2009
The fix
People listening to the latests Elbow's album "The Seldom Seen Kid", would have been surprised by the voice of Richard Hawley in the song "The Fix" (and an amazing table guitar solo at the end). The song is about two schemers planning to fix a horse and retire on the winnings, and sounds like one of those songs extracted from a Rat Pack film. Apparently both Hawley and Elbow's singer, Guy Garvey conceived the song when they shared flight to Tennessee.
The song describes how are they fixing the horse, messing the saddle and the track and finally how are they going to enjoy with the earnings once the race is finished.
And I like how this song describes that feeling of power the two men have, they are the only ones that know, the rest don't, they are creating the future. Oh how much do we like winning, and some times what a nice feeling is to feel more clever than the rest.
The song describes how are they fixing the horse, messing the saddle and the track and finally how are they going to enjoy with the earnings once the race is finished.
And I like how this song describes that feeling of power the two men have, they are the only ones that know, the rest don't, they are creating the future. Oh how much do we like winning, and some times what a nice feeling is to feel more clever than the rest.
Saturday, 10 January 2009
The endless violence loop
Polish journalist and writer Ryszard Kapuściński quotes Bolesław Miciński in his book "The Polish Bush " (Busz po polsku)- War does not only deform the soul of the invaders, it also deforms those of the people invaded as their souls get poisoned with hate. -
Anyone that has studied a bit of system's theory should know that in any system with a positive feedback loop as the feedback does not compensate the input (by subtracting to the input) the system becomes unstable. In a situation of war we could translate the previous into; retaliation to an aggression will only bring more aggressions and thus more pain. This basic rule of stability may had not been very clear even to the authors of some sacred books when they wrote things like "an eye for an eye a tooth for tooth".
Trying to figure out who was the one who threw the stone that started the conflict is just the lame excuse of those avoiding to solve the conflict. By the time the hearts are full of hate the reason is not used any more and the positive feedback loop leads to using even bigger stones to retaliate. It may be thought that at this stage the one with the biggest stone will win, but I am afraid that it is not true. Once a system becomes unstable it may be so for ever, even in the absence of an input.
So in the case of an aggression I guess that you should defend yourself, but just up to the point that it is not perceived as a further aggression, because even though you may have the biggest stone, throwing it will prove not to be on your benefit.
Anyone that has studied a bit of system's theory should know that in any system with a positive feedback loop as the feedback does not compensate the input (by subtracting to the input) the system becomes unstable. In a situation of war we could translate the previous into; retaliation to an aggression will only bring more aggressions and thus more pain. This basic rule of stability may had not been very clear even to the authors of some sacred books when they wrote things like "an eye for an eye a tooth for tooth".
Trying to figure out who was the one who threw the stone that started the conflict is just the lame excuse of those avoiding to solve the conflict. By the time the hearts are full of hate the reason is not used any more and the positive feedback loop leads to using even bigger stones to retaliate. It may be thought that at this stage the one with the biggest stone will win, but I am afraid that it is not true. Once a system becomes unstable it may be so for ever, even in the absence of an input.
So in the case of an aggression I guess that you should defend yourself, but just up to the point that it is not perceived as a further aggression, because even though you may have the biggest stone, throwing it will prove not to be on your benefit.
Thursday, 8 January 2009
Monday, 5 January 2009
Thursday, 18 December 2008
Call me an idiot but I am not stupid
Cocktail of the day. A little bit of behavioural economics mixed with genetic evolutionism.
First a well known experiment; €10 and 2 persons, one of the persons makes an offer on how to split the money, the second accepts or rejects the offer. If the offer is accepted both subjects split the money as offered, if the offer is rejected no one gets any money. The interesting thing of this experiment is not that in most of the cases the offer is fair and close to half of the money, the interesting part is that for very unfair offers, for example a 8 / 2 split, the second subject rejects the offer. In this case both subjects loose. Why does not the second subject think that after all €2 is better than nothing? Well it seems that the natural response by human beings is to reject unfairness, even if it does not benefit them in the short term.
So is it just that humans have developed a sense for fairness and punish the unfair, or is it that we know that several behaviours are not good for the group (the apparent altruism described by Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene") and as part of the group we punish anyone trying to break the equilibrium in the group? I believe so, by punishing behaviours that are against the group we make sure that in the future selfish behaviours will be less likely to happen.
Under certain circumstances by losing we all win, and thus we are ready to take the pain. But this altruism may have its limits. Take for example the countries were corruption is generalized, it happens at all levels from the top officials to the layman. In those societies the equilibrium is already broken and it makes no difference to punish any individual for her greed as it won't make any difference for the group as a whole. Thus once corruption is installed in a society it is so difficult to eradicate because the cohesion principles of the group are already broken.
First a well known experiment; €10 and 2 persons, one of the persons makes an offer on how to split the money, the second accepts or rejects the offer. If the offer is accepted both subjects split the money as offered, if the offer is rejected no one gets any money. The interesting thing of this experiment is not that in most of the cases the offer is fair and close to half of the money, the interesting part is that for very unfair offers, for example a 8 / 2 split, the second subject rejects the offer. In this case both subjects loose. Why does not the second subject think that after all €2 is better than nothing? Well it seems that the natural response by human beings is to reject unfairness, even if it does not benefit them in the short term.
So is it just that humans have developed a sense for fairness and punish the unfair, or is it that we know that several behaviours are not good for the group (the apparent altruism described by Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene") and as part of the group we punish anyone trying to break the equilibrium in the group? I believe so, by punishing behaviours that are against the group we make sure that in the future selfish behaviours will be less likely to happen.
Under certain circumstances by losing we all win, and thus we are ready to take the pain. But this altruism may have its limits. Take for example the countries were corruption is generalized, it happens at all levels from the top officials to the layman. In those societies the equilibrium is already broken and it makes no difference to punish any individual for her greed as it won't make any difference for the group as a whole. Thus once corruption is installed in a society it is so difficult to eradicate because the cohesion principles of the group are already broken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
