04 July 2008
02 July 2008
A tip for folks who drive at night.
When you're driving at night, most folks have a tendency to look directly into the headlights of oncomng traffic. It's a pretty natural thing to do. Something bright and shiny is moving in your field of vision, so it draws your eye.
It also tends to kill your night vision, leaving you seeing spots, and not seeing the road as well as you did before.
A little trick that I was shown is to not look directly at the oncoming lights. Instead, look down and to the right, and watch the line on the right side of the road.
The oncoming lights will still dazzle your eyes, but instead of dazzling the center of your vision, they'll get the far left side, and leave you still able to see the road just fine.
It also tends to kill your night vision, leaving you seeing spots, and not seeing the road as well as you did before.
A little trick that I was shown is to not look directly at the oncoming lights. Instead, look down and to the right, and watch the line on the right side of the road.
The oncoming lights will still dazzle your eyes, but instead of dazzling the center of your vision, they'll get the far left side, and leave you still able to see the road just fine.
01 July 2008
Pay attention, or else
"Sleepnosis" is a way of doing hypnosis where the hypnotist simply repeats suggestions over and over while the subject is asleep. There's some discussion about just how effective this really is, but for the most part, people studying this seem to agree that there is some effect. They also show that the more often the suggestions are repeated, and the more nights they are presented, the more effective they can be.
This makes me wonder about the people who go to sleep with a TV on.
If you don't actively pay attention to the information and opinions that are being presented to you, then those "facts" and opinions get to sneak in past your filters and take up residence in your brain.
As we wander through our day, our senses report an incredible amount of information to our brains. So much information, in fact, that we can't actively process all of it. Our brains just don't have the bandwidth available to consciously sort through it all. So we end up tending to ignore most of what's going on in the background around us... consciously, anyway.
But the subsconscious part of our minds is always listening and always paying attention to everything that our senses report. Part of it's job is to alert our conscious to things of interest that we might not be actively paying attention to. Have you ever woken up in the middle of the night because you heard a weird, out of place noise, even though you were sleeping when you heard it? Ever been in a crowded room, carrying on a conversation, and suddenly picked out someone saying your name through all of the background chatter?
That's your subconscious, doing it's job. It's perfectly capable of taking in massive amounts of sensory input, making sense of it, and sorting it, all without the slightest bit of input from your conscious. It's always on and always listening, even if you're not paying attention. And that's where the problem starts.
The conscious part of your mind is what you use to "pay attention" to something, and is the part of your mind where your logic exists. It's the part where you'd think something like "That guy is certainly passionate about this topic, but if you actually listen to what he's saying, he's full of shit." When you do that, your subconscious can classify that information as "fulla shit" and file it appropriately. Things can get more interesting if you're not actually paying attention to what's being presented.
When that happens, your subconscious gets to make the classification decisions on its own, and it doesn't have access to logic. All it has to make judgements with are your memories and your emotions. Without access to logic, it can only judge the validity of incoming information by comparing it to your past experiences and the emotional states you were in at those times. It's the part of your mind that might think "That guy is certainly passionate about this topic. The last time I felt like that, it was something that was pretty important, so this information must be pretty important too!"
So suddenly, anyone on TV, from douchebags on the news spouting hate and bile, to the advertizers trying desperately to get you to buy something, have a way to get their messages into your head unfiltered and unedited. And that's not a Good Thing.
It's also works to a certain extent if you're awake, but not paying direct attention. Again, repetition and repeated exposure reinforce the message.
So if you're going to watch TV, watch it and then turn it off. Don't just leave the thing on in the background, and whatever you do, don't fall asleep in front of it.
This makes me wonder about the people who go to sleep with a TV on.
If you don't actively pay attention to the information and opinions that are being presented to you, then those "facts" and opinions get to sneak in past your filters and take up residence in your brain.
As we wander through our day, our senses report an incredible amount of information to our brains. So much information, in fact, that we can't actively process all of it. Our brains just don't have the bandwidth available to consciously sort through it all. So we end up tending to ignore most of what's going on in the background around us... consciously, anyway.
But the subsconscious part of our minds is always listening and always paying attention to everything that our senses report. Part of it's job is to alert our conscious to things of interest that we might not be actively paying attention to. Have you ever woken up in the middle of the night because you heard a weird, out of place noise, even though you were sleeping when you heard it? Ever been in a crowded room, carrying on a conversation, and suddenly picked out someone saying your name through all of the background chatter?
That's your subconscious, doing it's job. It's perfectly capable of taking in massive amounts of sensory input, making sense of it, and sorting it, all without the slightest bit of input from your conscious. It's always on and always listening, even if you're not paying attention. And that's where the problem starts.
The conscious part of your mind is what you use to "pay attention" to something, and is the part of your mind where your logic exists. It's the part where you'd think something like "That guy is certainly passionate about this topic, but if you actually listen to what he's saying, he's full of shit." When you do that, your subconscious can classify that information as "fulla shit" and file it appropriately. Things can get more interesting if you're not actually paying attention to what's being presented.
When that happens, your subconscious gets to make the classification decisions on its own, and it doesn't have access to logic. All it has to make judgements with are your memories and your emotions. Without access to logic, it can only judge the validity of incoming information by comparing it to your past experiences and the emotional states you were in at those times. It's the part of your mind that might think "That guy is certainly passionate about this topic. The last time I felt like that, it was something that was pretty important, so this information must be pretty important too!"
So suddenly, anyone on TV, from douchebags on the news spouting hate and bile, to the advertizers trying desperately to get you to buy something, have a way to get their messages into your head unfiltered and unedited. And that's not a Good Thing.
It's also works to a certain extent if you're awake, but not paying direct attention. Again, repetition and repeated exposure reinforce the message.
So if you're going to watch TV, watch it and then turn it off. Don't just leave the thing on in the background, and whatever you do, don't fall asleep in front of it.
12 January 2008
Silent Library
Just to keep things from getting too highbrow around here, here's a clip from the Japanese game show Silent Library. (Safe for work, unless your workplace won't let you giggle loudly.)
11 January 2008
The Scientific Method
Howdy folks.
This post is absolutely and utterly off the topic of hypnotism. For that, I apologize. Normally I wouldn't do something like this, but watching the discussion in a couple of mailing lists that I follow, has caused me a bit of discomfort in these past weeks. So if you'll indulge me for a moment as I climb, with heavy heart and a deep sigh, up onto my soapbox, I'll try to keep this both short, and entertaining. Again, I'm sorry. It won't happen again. :)
In a couple of different threads, people have been citing the scientific method, and using a metaphor about a fishnet with one-inch holes to illustrate the problems inherent in that process. They say that a scientist is like a fisherman, fishing for years with a net with one-inch holes, who eventually comes to the conclusion that there are no fish smaller than an inch.
Unfortunately, that metaphor is either completely incorrect, or describes only the first step of a multi-step process. The conclusion that the fisherman comes to, that no fish smaller than one inch across exist, is exactly the type of conclusion that the scientific method is designed to prevent. The proper use of the scientific method would go something more like this:
"Yarr, sez I." exclaimed the grizzled old fisherman as he dumped the last of the fish from his net into the hold of his ship. "Another hold full of slippery fish, and not a single one of them smaller than an inch! In all the many years that I've been fishin' these here waters, I can't say that I've ever set eyes on a single fishie that small. In fact, the way things seem to stack up, I'd wager my ship that such a creature doesn't exist!"
"I wouldn't make that bet just yet, my fishy friend." said the scientist, cleaning his safety glasses on his pristine white lab-coat. "I'd hate to see you lose this... marvelous vessel... without first subjecting your conclusion to The Scientific Method! (method! method!)"
"That's a hell of an echo you've got there." remarked the fisherman.
"They taught us that in College. (college. college)" replied the scientist echoingly. "The ladies love it! (love it! love it!)"
"Yarr, I bet ye think they do."
"Ahem... So let's take your statement, that there are no fish smaller than an inch, and make that our hypothesis."
"Hi-whatsis?" asked the fisherman, removing his hat and scratching his tanned head.
"Hypothesis, my peg-legged friend." said the scientist. Taking a seat on a barrel, he tapped the ashes from his pipe, and quickly refilled and lit it. "It a statement, made by observing the facts and drawing a conclusion from them. Although most people tend to stop there, forming a hypothesis is only the first step in The Scientific Method! (method! method!)"
"You can stop doing that any time now" scowled the fisherman.
"Sorry." said the scientist, and took a quick puff from his pipe. "Anyway... As I said, forming a hypothesis is only the first step. Next, we must devise a clever experiment to test our hypothesis. We must try and find a way to test and see if the hypothesis is wrong."
"Don't ye mean 'see if it's right'?"
"No, my sea-addled friend. I meant 'see if it's wrong'. You see, the only way to accurately test a hypothesis is to see if it can be disproved. If we were to try and prove the hypothesis correct, how many fish do you think we'd have to look at to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that ALL fish are bigger than an inch?"
"Well," said the fisherman, scratching his chin in thought. "I guess ye'd have to look at all of 'em. Wouldn't ye?"
"That's exactly correct, my maritime friend. But if we attempt to DISprove the hypothesis, we need only discover a single diminutive fish in order to find it false!"
"Yarr." agreed the fisherman. "That would certainly take less time. But let me ask ye a question. What would happen if, during this 'experiment' of yours, you don't find any wee fishies either?"
"Well then, my... er, um." Scratching his temple with the stem of the pipe, the scientist paused in frustration. "Help me out here, Gordon. I'm running out of ocean metaphors."
"How about barnacle-encrusted?"
"That's good, but you're not technically... encrusted."
"Wind-blown?"
"Maybe your hair..."
"Ummm... natatory?"
"What?"
"Natatory. Means of, or related to swimming."
"..." The scientist stared blankly at his natatory friend for a moment before continuing.
"Anyway, assuming that the experimental data was shown to support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis could be called a theory and used to describe the world around us. But it wouldn't end there. Oh no! Other scientists would take up the challenge, and continue to test out theory, recreating our experiments and devising new ones of their own. Trying over and over to disprove it. But no matter if our theory stood the tests of time, the scientific method demands that it continue to be tested, and always allows for the possibility that someday it may be found false. And if that happens, then the theory MUST be discarded and we start the WHOLE process all over again with new hypotheses that fit the new data."
The fisherman lowered his eyes and looked at his hands for a moment, studying the lines and calluses deposited there by years of hard work. "So you're tellin' me that even if we do these experiments, and never disprove this theory, that we can never say for absolutely certain that it's true? That it's not a cold hard fact, so much as it's just... a best guess?"
"Pretty much." said the scientist, puffing gently on his pipe as he leaned back and and gazed out at the horizon. "But that's the call of science. Calling us to find out more about the world around us. How it works and what it's made of. Calling us to try and tease apart it's secrets and ferret out the truth using only the logic of our minds and the sweat of our brows. What do you think?"
Shaking his head, the fisherman turned to the mass of ropes and netting hanging from the booms overhead. "I think... I think I'll get me a different net."
----------------------
The point of this whole mess is to get across to you that observing what's going on and making statements about it is only the *first* step of the scientific method. If you stop there, then you're not being scientific.
You also have to test your hypothesis using a well-constructed experiment that attempts to disprove it. If you do your experiment with the goal of proving yourself right, then you're not being scientific. If you hypothesis can't actually be tested, or isn't stated in a manner that can be disproved, then you're not being scientific.
The scientific method is designed to remove the flaws of human mis-judgement from the process. Used properly, it doesn't allow flaws in your arguments, or in your outcomes.
Thanks for listening.
This post is absolutely and utterly off the topic of hypnotism. For that, I apologize. Normally I wouldn't do something like this, but watching the discussion in a couple of mailing lists that I follow, has caused me a bit of discomfort in these past weeks. So if you'll indulge me for a moment as I climb, with heavy heart and a deep sigh, up onto my soapbox, I'll try to keep this both short, and entertaining. Again, I'm sorry. It won't happen again. :)
In a couple of different threads, people have been citing the scientific method, and using a metaphor about a fishnet with one-inch holes to illustrate the problems inherent in that process. They say that a scientist is like a fisherman, fishing for years with a net with one-inch holes, who eventually comes to the conclusion that there are no fish smaller than an inch.
Unfortunately, that metaphor is either completely incorrect, or describes only the first step of a multi-step process. The conclusion that the fisherman comes to, that no fish smaller than one inch across exist, is exactly the type of conclusion that the scientific method is designed to prevent. The proper use of the scientific method would go something more like this:
"Yarr, sez I." exclaimed the grizzled old fisherman as he dumped the last of the fish from his net into the hold of his ship. "Another hold full of slippery fish, and not a single one of them smaller than an inch! In all the many years that I've been fishin' these here waters, I can't say that I've ever set eyes on a single fishie that small. In fact, the way things seem to stack up, I'd wager my ship that such a creature doesn't exist!"
"I wouldn't make that bet just yet, my fishy friend." said the scientist, cleaning his safety glasses on his pristine white lab-coat. "I'd hate to see you lose this... marvelous vessel... without first subjecting your conclusion to The Scientific Method! (method! method!)"
"That's a hell of an echo you've got there." remarked the fisherman.
"They taught us that in College. (college. college)" replied the scientist echoingly. "The ladies love it! (love it! love it!)"
"Yarr, I bet ye think they do."
"Ahem... So let's take your statement, that there are no fish smaller than an inch, and make that our hypothesis."
"Hi-whatsis?" asked the fisherman, removing his hat and scratching his tanned head.
"Hypothesis, my peg-legged friend." said the scientist. Taking a seat on a barrel, he tapped the ashes from his pipe, and quickly refilled and lit it. "It a statement, made by observing the facts and drawing a conclusion from them. Although most people tend to stop there, forming a hypothesis is only the first step in The Scientific Method! (method! method!)"
"You can stop doing that any time now" scowled the fisherman.
"Sorry." said the scientist, and took a quick puff from his pipe. "Anyway... As I said, forming a hypothesis is only the first step. Next, we must devise a clever experiment to test our hypothesis. We must try and find a way to test and see if the hypothesis is wrong."
"Don't ye mean 'see if it's right'?"
"No, my sea-addled friend. I meant 'see if it's wrong'. You see, the only way to accurately test a hypothesis is to see if it can be disproved. If we were to try and prove the hypothesis correct, how many fish do you think we'd have to look at to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that ALL fish are bigger than an inch?"
"Well," said the fisherman, scratching his chin in thought. "I guess ye'd have to look at all of 'em. Wouldn't ye?"
"That's exactly correct, my maritime friend. But if we attempt to DISprove the hypothesis, we need only discover a single diminutive fish in order to find it false!"
"Yarr." agreed the fisherman. "That would certainly take less time. But let me ask ye a question. What would happen if, during this 'experiment' of yours, you don't find any wee fishies either?"
"Well then, my... er, um." Scratching his temple with the stem of the pipe, the scientist paused in frustration. "Help me out here, Gordon. I'm running out of ocean metaphors."
"How about barnacle-encrusted?"
"That's good, but you're not technically... encrusted."
"Wind-blown?"
"Maybe your hair..."
"Ummm... natatory?"
"What?"
"Natatory. Means of, or related to swimming."
"..." The scientist stared blankly at his natatory friend for a moment before continuing.
"Anyway, assuming that the experimental data was shown to support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis could be called a theory and used to describe the world around us. But it wouldn't end there. Oh no! Other scientists would take up the challenge, and continue to test out theory, recreating our experiments and devising new ones of their own. Trying over and over to disprove it. But no matter if our theory stood the tests of time, the scientific method demands that it continue to be tested, and always allows for the possibility that someday it may be found false. And if that happens, then the theory MUST be discarded and we start the WHOLE process all over again with new hypotheses that fit the new data."
The fisherman lowered his eyes and looked at his hands for a moment, studying the lines and calluses deposited there by years of hard work. "So you're tellin' me that even if we do these experiments, and never disprove this theory, that we can never say for absolutely certain that it's true? That it's not a cold hard fact, so much as it's just... a best guess?"
"Pretty much." said the scientist, puffing gently on his pipe as he leaned back and and gazed out at the horizon. "But that's the call of science. Calling us to find out more about the world around us. How it works and what it's made of. Calling us to try and tease apart it's secrets and ferret out the truth using only the logic of our minds and the sweat of our brows. What do you think?"
Shaking his head, the fisherman turned to the mass of ropes and netting hanging from the booms overhead. "I think... I think I'll get me a different net."
----------------------
The point of this whole mess is to get across to you that observing what's going on and making statements about it is only the *first* step of the scientific method. If you stop there, then you're not being scientific.
You also have to test your hypothesis using a well-constructed experiment that attempts to disprove it. If you do your experiment with the goal of proving yourself right, then you're not being scientific. If you hypothesis can't actually be tested, or isn't stated in a manner that can be disproved, then you're not being scientific.
The scientific method is designed to remove the flaws of human mis-judgement from the process. Used properly, it doesn't allow flaws in your arguments, or in your outcomes.
Thanks for listening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)