I've been listening to a lot of books by Brandon Sanderson lately, a graduate of BYU. Then I finally read one, and which allowed me to read the acknowledgments page, something that often gets left out of the audio.
On the acknowledgments page of Mistborn, the author thanks "the incalculable Peter Ahlstrom". In the sequel, Well of Ascension, another Merrill Hall alum is credited, Nathan Goodrich, and Peter is again given special mention. (For those of you that lived in University Park with me, Stacy Whitman is also mentioned.)
The books may not be the best book club books, as they're rather long, and don't need a lot of discussing, outside of a few 'That was awesome.' comments. Besides, I'm unclear as to if the book club is even still alive. It's been a year since an official book was chosen.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Let the Good Times Roll
I had a conference in NYC last week, so I used it as an excuse to go up to Boston (and then the coast of Maine).
Besides the degrees, the kids, the homes, and the sore backs, Peter and Jesse haven't changed a bit. It was like old times.
Peter's new universal conversation starter, to his wife's chagrin, is the federal budget. It doesn't work much better in real life than it has on this blog.
The Jones and Barnes families were both excellent hosts. Thanks.
Besides the degrees, the kids, the homes, and the sore backs, Peter and Jesse haven't changed a bit. It was like old times.
Peter's new universal conversation starter, to his wife's chagrin, is the federal budget. It doesn't work much better in real life than it has on this blog.
The Jones and Barnes families were both excellent hosts. Thanks.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Federal budget deficits
I've been reading a lot over the past few days about the current federal budgetary issues. One of the more interesting things I've found is this working paper from Alan Auerbach (UC Berkley economist) on the mid and long term debt projections. He calculates deficit projections under the assumptions of perpetuating the AMT and Medicare Doc fixes and compares it to the CBO scores. Essentially it shows that the CBO score for the budget likely underestimates total deficits over the next 10 years by about $5 trillion. And that's assuming Bush tax cuts expire as does stimulus spending. If those assumptions are reversed it adds another $5 trillion over 10 years.
But for me the real story is Figure 3 (page 22). Under every projection, revenues (as a percent of GDP) will be flat after 2013 and spending (as a percent of GDP) will linearly increase. All non-mandatory (i.e. non-social) spending will fall, as a percentage of the budget as more and more money (absolutely and proportionally) goes to providing social goods.
The good news is Auerbach is reportedly on Obama's short-list to replace Austen Goolsbee as the head of the Council of Economic Advisers. So if he's appointed, and he manages to avoid being captured by Washington interests, maybe he can bring some sense to the budget process.
Do we need to curtail federal spending? If so, how? The paper linked above doesn't make it totally clear, but the tables found here make it clear that the only sector of spending that is increasing (as a proportion of GDP) is mandatory social spending (Medicare, Medicaid, SS, SSDI, etc.). So, for those PVSers who support liberal federal economic policy, can you propose some way of making social spending sustainable?
But for me the real story is Figure 3 (page 22). Under every projection, revenues (as a percent of GDP) will be flat after 2013 and spending (as a percent of GDP) will linearly increase. All non-mandatory (i.e. non-social) spending will fall, as a percentage of the budget as more and more money (absolutely and proportionally) goes to providing social goods.
The good news is Auerbach is reportedly on Obama's short-list to replace Austen Goolsbee as the head of the Council of Economic Advisers. So if he's appointed, and he manages to avoid being captured by Washington interests, maybe he can bring some sense to the budget process.
Do we need to curtail federal spending? If so, how? The paper linked above doesn't make it totally clear, but the tables found here make it clear that the only sector of spending that is increasing (as a proportion of GDP) is mandatory social spending (Medicare, Medicaid, SS, SSDI, etc.). So, for those PVSers who support liberal federal economic policy, can you propose some way of making social spending sustainable?
Friday, April 29, 2011
Doug Comes to Maryland
Doug and Becky Larson were kind enough to include us on their trip up to DC from NC. They stayed for two nights. It was great. Just like old times. We even went running a couple of times (I'm so out of shape.), as Doug showed off his 5-finger shoes (it was too wet for him to run barefoot, which he often does). I hope all of you will stop by for a visit eventually.
We talked a little about this USA, Inc. business. Doug was mostly interested in the health care side of things. His first suggestion was to blow up the tobacco industry, somehow forcing all smokers to cover their own health care cost. Personally, I think it's a nice idea, but as one who has just been snacking on Easter candy, I can't point the 'be healthy' finger. I can't see anything like that happening politically.
Doug also pointed out that we are much more overweight and have many other health problems that other countries don't, so comparing health costs may not be a fair comparison. Plus, we pay a lot for studies (to get approved by the FDA) and the medical trials and basic medical science that we do here is like a gift we give to the rest of the country. Of course, he also recognizes, much better than I, all of the problems with our health care system, and I suppose he'll post here himself and explain them one of these days.
Becky thinks everyone should need some sort of end of life plan in order to receive Social Security. We waste so much money in end-of-life care, when often the person receiving treatment wouldn't even want that done. I like this idea, especially if it can free doctors (even a little bit) from fear of lawsuits.
There are lots of ways our health care system could become more efficient. Obama's budget plan depends on being able to make it more efficient. Even if he does so, I found his plan to be severely lacking. I'm not even against taxing the richest people a little more. I think everyone is going to have to sacrifice some, but Obama's speech wasn't about sacrifice. He basically said, "Hey, we're America. We can afford everything. We just need the rich people to pay their share."
I think all avenues of getting the budget problems fixed should be on the table. USA Inc. ignores defense because it's not that different than historical levels. It's nice not to blame everything on the wars, but we've got to be better in all of our spending.
I have been listening to this book called 'The Black Swan'. It goes into some detail about how wrong economic predictions are. They have quite a terrible track record. The reason they are so terrible is because they always miss big, rare events, such as 9/11, etc. These models that all of this budget talk is based on... they are almost assuredly all wrong, that goes for both political parties. Just like how it always takes you longer than you think to paint a room, the budget will surely turn out worse than people think.
As a government employee, I know that there are a lot of inefficiencies in the government. I expect there are inefficiencies in most companies, too, but companies are better a scaling back and adjusting when things go wrong. I don't have much faith in our politicians' ability to fix our debt problem. I hope I'm wrong.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Thesis Defense and USA, Inc.
For those who didn't see the news via other information feeds, I successfully defended my thesis last Friday. It's a wonderful feeling not to have an unfinished thesis hanging over one's head (Alvin, I'm looking at you). The thesis title was "Coherent Approximation of Distributed Expert Assessments." The main idea is that when people (or non-human expert systems, like computer algorithms) try to guess the value of two or more uncertain quantities that are related (like, for instance, the probability that the Red Sox win the World Series and the probability the Cubs win the World Series), they may generate logically irreconcilable estimates. The irreconcilability manifests itself in terms of money pumps, like Dutch Books in distributed probability estimation or market arbitrage more generally. My thesis develops a mathematical method for correcting such errors.
On the subject of USA, Inc., I think now would be a great time to discuss it. I'd love to see it in context of the several budget proposals that are currently being put forward (evidently House Democrats are expected to put out a budget proposal today to counter the Republicans' proposal from last week, and President Obama is also getting in on the game, outlining a proposal in his speech tonight).
I read the executive summary of the report and liked several of the points the author made. Most importantly, I think she accurately pointed out that we need to set reasonable goals for revenues and outlays. For instance, the Ryan budget sets revenue at 18% of GDP, and balances the budget by 1) capping Medicare outlays and indexing them to inflation and 2) turning Medicaid payments into block grants to states and 3) significantly reducing all non-defense discretionary spending. This is about what we should expect if revenue is set to approximately 18% of GDP; the federal government simply can't do all it's been doing with that level of funding.
If, instead, we want to continue funding Medicare, Medicaid and discretionary spending at the current levels we need to talk about how much of revenue that will require. In this case, as Meeker points out, the outlays have been growing faster than GDP, so the revenue side would have to grow faster than GDP. This is obviously unsustainable, which leads me to conclude that any plan that doesn't index entitlement growth to GDP growth (or a surrogate like inflation) is not a serious plan.
There are a lot of nuances that I think could be added to the debate; for instance, during the 1990s (most recent decade I found data on) US healthcare costs rose at about 3%, in line with inflation. The big increases people cite (particularly in cross-national comparisons) seem to have largely happened in the 1970s and 1980s. So are healthcare rates really increasing, or are outlays increasingly primarily because more people are being enrolled (hint: it's the latter). Meeker rushes by this point (at least in the executive summary), but I think it's an important conceptual one to recognize (if it's valid; I don't know that the sparse statistics I've seen thus far justify my assertion).
On the subject of USA, Inc., I think now would be a great time to discuss it. I'd love to see it in context of the several budget proposals that are currently being put forward (evidently House Democrats are expected to put out a budget proposal today to counter the Republicans' proposal from last week, and President Obama is also getting in on the game, outlining a proposal in his speech tonight).
I read the executive summary of the report and liked several of the points the author made. Most importantly, I think she accurately pointed out that we need to set reasonable goals for revenues and outlays. For instance, the Ryan budget sets revenue at 18% of GDP, and balances the budget by 1) capping Medicare outlays and indexing them to inflation and 2) turning Medicaid payments into block grants to states and 3) significantly reducing all non-defense discretionary spending. This is about what we should expect if revenue is set to approximately 18% of GDP; the federal government simply can't do all it's been doing with that level of funding.
If, instead, we want to continue funding Medicare, Medicaid and discretionary spending at the current levels we need to talk about how much of revenue that will require. In this case, as Meeker points out, the outlays have been growing faster than GDP, so the revenue side would have to grow faster than GDP. This is obviously unsustainable, which leads me to conclude that any plan that doesn't index entitlement growth to GDP growth (or a surrogate like inflation) is not a serious plan.
There are a lot of nuances that I think could be added to the debate; for instance, during the 1990s (most recent decade I found data on) US healthcare costs rose at about 3%, in line with inflation. The big increases people cite (particularly in cross-national comparisons) seem to have largely happened in the 1970s and 1980s. So are healthcare rates really increasing, or are outlays increasingly primarily because more people are being enrolled (hint: it's the latter). Meeker rushes by this point (at least in the executive summary), but I think it's an important conceptual one to recognize (if it's valid; I don't know that the sparse statistics I've seen thus far justify my assertion).
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
USA Inc
This is one of the more interesting and important things I've read in awhile. It isn't exactly a book but has some significant depth and deals with issues that are obviously critical. It is written mostly in finance-speak but I think is presented plainly enough to be clear if you walk through it. We could even make it up for discussion if people have interest...
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Glenn in the news
Well, I wasn't actually in the news, but someone I know was. Craig Franklin (AKA, the cheese-head man).
A group of us from the University got together to participate in the Polar Plunge, a fund-raiser for the Missouri Chapter of the Special Olympics.
Since we work with research animals, we dubbed ourselves the mice-cicles. Our boss (Craig Franklin), was the cheese.
It was cold crazy fun, though we were fortunate enough to have the weather warm up substantially in the week preceding the event.
Pictures and such on my blog:
http://glennandgirlies.blogspot.com/2011/03/polar-plunge.html
A group of us from the University got together to participate in the Polar Plunge, a fund-raiser for the Missouri Chapter of the Special Olympics.
Since we work with research animals, we dubbed ourselves the mice-cicles. Our boss (Craig Franklin), was the cheese.
It was cold crazy fun, though we were fortunate enough to have the weather warm up substantially in the week preceding the event.
Pictures and such on my blog:
http://glennandgirlies.blogspot.com/2011/03/polar-plunge.html
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Keeping New Year's Resolutions
Last night, I had a dream that Peter was riding his BMX bike past the place where I was giving blood, so I guess I need to respond to his post. I think Peter's ideas about having a schedule and a theme are brilliant. The schedule would be the more helpful of the two. Then I can reserve books in advance and plan time on the calendar to write a post. (It's surprising how much more effort it takes to write than to read.)
In my opinion, the first schedule should include 4 books between now and the end of June. Then we can adjust from there. I know that most people won't read 4 books, but if only 2 are scheduled, then there's a greater chance that you won't like any of the options. Plus, the rotation in who gets to choose goes faster. (Note: I can be convinced of 3 if they're going to include long books, like Rob's suggestion of Ayn Rand.)
I think the theme idea is fun. I would make slight tweaks to Peter's suggested themes. For example, instead of "Leadership", I would say "Leaders and Legends", the proposed names of two divisions in the Big Ten. You can tie ANYTHING into a theme, so no one needs to feel limited. If you've ever played Bible Scattegories, you know what I mean. Of course, if you are subsequently going to ignore the theme, then there's really no point in having one. So perhaps a theme is unnecessary.
Anyway, let's get this party started. Just make a decision, Peter, and we'll all try it out. I'm looking forward to more stimulating virtual conversation this year.
In my opinion, the first schedule should include 4 books between now and the end of June. Then we can adjust from there. I know that most people won't read 4 books, but if only 2 are scheduled, then there's a greater chance that you won't like any of the options. Plus, the rotation in who gets to choose goes faster. (Note: I can be convinced of 3 if they're going to include long books, like Rob's suggestion of Ayn Rand.)
I think the theme idea is fun. I would make slight tweaks to Peter's suggested themes. For example, instead of "Leadership", I would say "Leaders and Legends", the proposed names of two divisions in the Big Ten. You can tie ANYTHING into a theme, so no one needs to feel limited. If you've ever played Bible Scattegories, you know what I mean. Of course, if you are subsequently going to ignore the theme, then there's really no point in having one. So perhaps a theme is unnecessary.
Anyway, let's get this party started. Just make a decision, Peter, and we'll all try it out. I'm looking forward to more stimulating virtual conversation this year.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Happy New Year's Day
Happy 2011 PVS!
I've been less active on the blog than I would like recently. I chalk it up to guilt over
And welcome to mythical Rob. I'm pretty positive I invited you to join a couple of times, but maybe the hotmail address I was using was defunct.
I've been thinking about a way forward for the PVS book club; it seemed to fizzle a bit at the end of 2010, and I had a couple of ideas I thought might make it more enjoyable for 2011. First, I'd like to choose a broad theme for the year, something to tie the books together. I had thought something like "Leadership" or "Death" or "Marriage". This will decrease the eclecticism somewhat (unfortunately), but I think it might make the overall experience more rewarding. My other thought is that we should choose the list of books and discussion dates in advance (set a schedule through June, for example); according to Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, this would be a helpful nudge that might make participation easier.
So, if you like these ideas, or if you hate them, or if you have a suggestion for a theme, or if you have other suggestions on the book club, I'm pretty sure you can find the comment box. And even if you don't have any comment other than "yeah, I wanna keep the book club going," that would be still be helpful to gauge interest.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Born to Run
Well this is several months late, but a quick look at recent posts says I may not be all that late after all...
And it's too bad that the Mortensens are not coming to North Carolina. That would have been fun. I haven't seen Robert since a trip I took to Phoenix several years ago.
My answers to Alvin's specific questions are posted as a comment below. I know you are dying to read them...
One of the first friends I made when I moved to Durham was our Elder's quorum president. This guy was from the Portland Oregon area and totally fit the mold: (remember, I lived there and love it, so this is not meant in derision) he loved outdoor activities, was a conservationist, drove a Volvo, and generally eschewed unnecessary worldly possessions. They raised their own chickens and eat granola. At the same time, he's a brilliant PhD candidate. Anyway, the one truly weird thing was the barefoot running.
Apparently he had always been a runner and cyclist. Then one day at a meeting in Chicago, he meets a barefoot runner and everything changes. By the time I moved to Durham, he had run at least one barefoot marathon, using his bedroom slippers to get him through some of the more rocky parts of the course.
Bizarre!
Or so I thought...
About 6 months after I moved here, the brand new Nikes I was wearing turned out to be a bad purchase. My old plantar fasciitis was flaring up and even worse, I discovered the reality of IT band syndrome. I was limping rather severely through my life when this friend again took the chance to preach the virtues of barefoot running. I listened just enough to hear him out, but still had not considered that he may be on to anything significant.
Then I heard he was running with a track club and had posted a 4:40 mile earlier that year. The speed shouldn't have mattered to me but it did. I have a blind respect for people who are faster than I. Plus, there was no way I could afford new running shoes on our current budget.
I limped through my half marathon in March 2010, then put the running shoes in the closet.
It has been a difficult transition, to say the least. There is no small amount of pain involved with conditioning the skin on your feet, or developing muscles in your feet and calves to support the running style. For a while, I waffled back and forth between shoes and barefoot. There was a day sometime in the fall, though, when the fight was over. I was 4 or 5 miles into a run and my feet were again bothering me. I took the shoes off, finished the run, and haven't worn them since.
I don't know that barefoot running is really the answer to all my running woes. So far it has just been a pleasant surprise. I never would have pictured myself running 11 miles barefoot just for a good time, but that is what has started happening.
For Christmas, I got the Vibram FiveFingers. They are too new for me to give an opinion here, but early returns are positive.
Anyway, I did enjoy reading "Born to Run." Not coincidentally, my friend had been pestering me to read it for months. I was glad for the extra nudge from the PVS.
And as a final comment about this topic: I think the book may set a too-idealized tone about the benefits of the running lifestyle. If you could somehow magically turn our society into a society of runners, however, I believe the change would be overwhelmingly positive from a spiritual and especially medical perspective.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Quick Mortensen family update
At the end of September I started working with a company that repairs bank-owned homes (foreclosed homes). My job had me traveling from Maryland to South Carolina for 10 days at a time and we were about to move from Boise to the Raleigh area. The company called me while in NC one day and asked if I'd take a position in Salt Lake in the office of our largest client (one of those evil loan servicing companies that works for the bailed-out banks). So, we are moving to a home in Bountiful this week. We were excited about having an east coast family experience, but the new position is much more conducive to family life (no travel) for which I am grateful. Plus its closer to BYU football games!
I hope you have all had a great Christmas and may you all have a wonderful 2011!
I hope you have all had a great Christmas and may you all have a wonderful 2011!
Friday, December 17, 2010
Mythical Rob
I just got back from Utah where I saw Rob Christiansen. He told me he was aware of the Perpetual Virtual Symposium because of Scott and was interested in joining.
I just sent him an invitation and hopefully he'll be able to join soon and give you more of a background post. He claims to be the precinct chair for the local Democrats in Bountiful, Utah (all 10 of them?), but he thought reading some Ayn Rand together would generate some interesting discussion.
Here's hoping that some new blood and a controversial book will rejuvenate the PVS this next year.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Born to Conserve Energy
Since at least 3/4ths of the active book club members have already read Born to Run, I will kickoff the request to have a little discussion. The book's thesis is that early humans survived because they could out-run their prey. Thus, as part of our evolutionary DNA we are all potential distance runners. The fact that distance runners need to conserve energy, which would explain the human tendency toward laziness, makes the thesis all that more convincing. But were you completely convinced?
The author weaves his main thesis and his many sub-theses, quite entertainingly, into his story of legendary, super-runners. So lets' play a game called...
Do You Believe
I'll give a series of statements proposed directly or implicitly in the book, and you decide if you believe it or not. My answers are at the bottom and feel free to add to the list, as it has been a few months since I read the book.
Do you believe...
1. In evolution as a general principle?
2. That you, specifically, and modern humans in general are a product of evolution?
3. That modern man evolved from early distance runners?
4. That running injury-free is a realistic possibility?
5. That running barefoot, or close to barefoot, is the key to healthy running?
6. That shoe companies are a large racket that will eventually be exposed and fail?
7. That beer and magic beans are key components to a healthy diet?
8. That salad is the best breakfast?
9. That a species that evolved to chase down animals is better off not eating meat?
10. That an occasional drunken love-fest would be good for all societies?
11. That being happy makes you a better runner?
12. That you have the mental and physical powers to run an ultra-marathon (if you really wanted to)?
13. That you love your wife enough to run a marathon beside them as she runs an ultra-marathon?
14. That a super-fast lost indian tribe where the runners where capes and sandals is the coolest thing to ever happen to distance running?
My answers:
1. 100% Yes.
2. Unsure. There is certainly a lot of evidence for human evolution, and I think Mormonism includes all truth. Still, there are some Mormon doctrines that appear to be in conflict with human evolution (no death until after the fall, Adam as the first human, etc.), though there may certainly be ways for both the doctrines and evolution to be completely true. Gods ways are higher than mine own.
3. If 2 is true, then I like 3, as it explains laziness.
4. No.
5. I believe it should help.
6. Yes, and so are mattress companies.
7. No.
8. No. It's cereal.
9. The Word of Wisdom agrees with the little to no meat philosophy, but it seems contrary to point 3.
10. No.
11. It's difficult to separate cause and effect here, but being happy and loving what you do will tend to make you better at anything.
12. Nope.
13. No, but I'd drive beside her.
14. Most definitely. I loved the underdog sports story element to this book. The visual image of these happy, painfully-shy indians running against the best racers in the world in these impossibly difficult races was just awesome.
I really liked the book.
I liked the desire I had to run when I had finished the book.
Too bad that has passed.
The author weaves his main thesis and his many sub-theses, quite entertainingly, into his story of legendary, super-runners. So lets' play a game called...
Do You Believe
I'll give a series of statements proposed directly or implicitly in the book, and you decide if you believe it or not. My answers are at the bottom and feel free to add to the list, as it has been a few months since I read the book.
Do you believe...
1. In evolution as a general principle?
2. That you, specifically, and modern humans in general are a product of evolution?
3. That modern man evolved from early distance runners?
4. That running injury-free is a realistic possibility?
5. That running barefoot, or close to barefoot, is the key to healthy running?
6. That shoe companies are a large racket that will eventually be exposed and fail?
7. That beer and magic beans are key components to a healthy diet?
8. That salad is the best breakfast?
9. That a species that evolved to chase down animals is better off not eating meat?
10. That an occasional drunken love-fest would be good for all societies?
11. That being happy makes you a better runner?
12. That you have the mental and physical powers to run an ultra-marathon (if you really wanted to)?
13. That you love your wife enough to run a marathon beside them as she runs an ultra-marathon?
14. That a super-fast lost indian tribe where the runners where capes and sandals is the coolest thing to ever happen to distance running?
My answers:
1. 100% Yes.
2. Unsure. There is certainly a lot of evidence for human evolution, and I think Mormonism includes all truth. Still, there are some Mormon doctrines that appear to be in conflict with human evolution (no death until after the fall, Adam as the first human, etc.), though there may certainly be ways for both the doctrines and evolution to be completely true. Gods ways are higher than mine own.
3. If 2 is true, then I like 3, as it explains laziness.
4. No.
5. I believe it should help.
6. Yes, and so are mattress companies.
7. No.
8. No. It's cereal.
9. The Word of Wisdom agrees with the little to no meat philosophy, but it seems contrary to point 3.
10. No.
11. It's difficult to separate cause and effect here, but being happy and loving what you do will tend to make you better at anything.
12. Nope.
13. No, but I'd drive beside her.
14. Most definitely. I loved the underdog sports story element to this book. The visual image of these happy, painfully-shy indians running against the best racers in the world in these impossibly difficult races was just awesome.
I really liked the book.
I liked the desire I had to run when I had finished the book.
Too bad that has passed.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
One Nation, Under Science
Sorry for the extreme lateness of this response to the book club. I'd planned on writing something about three weeks ago, but life intervened. And I know that Alvin used the "One nation" schtick in his title too, but I really am just that unoriginal.
I enjoyed most of The Nation, right up until Daphne/Ermintrude's father arrived at the island. But I found the final few chapters thoroughly off-putting, to the point where I now tell people that I didn't much like the book. My particular gripes are about the need that Pratchett (an avowed humanist) had to intervene in the story and make it a moralistic play about the ability of science and exploration to give semi-mystical meaning to our otherwise purposeless civilization. Maybe that's putting it a bit strong, but I felt like the author spent four-fifths of a book exploring the interesting interstices of faith, doubt, miracle, perserverance, love and devotion, and then resolved it with some pablum about how "science doesn't belong to anybody" and can somehow both preserve our cultural traditions and at the same time unite us across all cultural boundaries. Which I think is absolute tripe. Science is (IMO) too revered in our Western culture (even our anti-authoritarian American culture); it's a useful tool, but it's not the answer to life, the universe and everything. Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett and Carl Sagan notwithstanding.
Whew, rant out of the way. What's hidden in there is I really did think it was a rippingly good book for about 200 pages. I think all of the questions Alvin and Paul raise are interesting and deserve a more full treatment than I can give at the moment, but I'll write my thoughts on a few.
The Culture and the Necessary I don't know to what degree I try to separate those aspects of my belief system that are culturally bred from those that are fundamental and invariant under multi-verses. I often ask myself questions like, "How absolutely wrong is it to drink alcohol?" (appropriate, given the context of the question within the poison beer). Obviously in ancient times and within the modern church prophets have drunk alcohol, presumably without everlasting consequences. So if alcohol isn't absolutely wrong, why is it wrong now in this time? Is it a cultural reason?
Perhaps more along the lines of what Alvin was thinking, I remember my shock during my first few weeks in Belgium when the Priests didn't cover the sacrament bread with a white cloth! I had seen in so many US wards the ritual of the sacrament that it seemed naked somehow without the solemn folding back of the cover to expose the bread, and then recovering and folding back the side to reveal the water. And I was doubly shocked when I realized that the sacrament ritual I was so used to was nowhere prescribed in the Scriptures. It was a bit of culture that had crept into the observance.
Are such things bad? I think they are, but not as bad as what can happen when you choose to confront them overly often. Specifically, performing spurious rituals and accepting as true and right things that are really just cultural appendages is (generally) preferable to attacking misfounded belief and risking 1) hurting another's faith and 2) accidentally hewing too deep and attacking well-founded belief. Excessive piety has seldom (it seems to me) led to excommunication, but if you slaughter too many sacred cows you may eventually find yourself killing something truly sacred (no offense to the Hindoos).
North vs. South In actual terms of North and South, it's interesting to note that most of the people live north of the equator (which makes sense since about 70% of the habitable land mass is north of the equator). So on one level it's almost inevitable that history would have a Northern slant to it.
To the more salient question of cultural superiority and subjugation, I feel pretty sensitive to it. I see within the US itself an increasingly homogenized culture, as regional dialects and accents disappear and we all shop for the same cheap crap at identical Walmarts and eat the same cheap food in identical plastic booths at fast food chain restaurants. I recognize that it's a completely rational decision; there are real to cost and efficiency benefits of the homogeneous culture. But I find it distressing that all local flavor seems to be disappearing from America. And I worry that the same thing is happening as a result of modernizing forces throughout the world.
While I feel that loss of cultural identity is a real problem, both within the US and internationally, I don't know that I would support any organized efforts to combat it. I think cultural preservation, and the desire and energy for cultural preservation must come from within the culture rather than without. Tying into the book, I thought the eventual protective role played by the British Empire while the island Nation made itself into a scientific Shangri-la derives from the same nation-building hubris that makes us believe we can export ideology. While I think it's important to engage on such matters (I'm a big supporter of muscular US diplomacy), I think the idea that a system in which local culture needs a global protector is doomed to failure.
Is there a time to lie In the tenth grade we were assigned to write an in-class essay on this very question. More specifically, on the portion of Adventures of Huck Finn when Huck lies to protectTom Jim and whether that was a moral decision or not. I rebelliously refused (in the most passively aggressive way possible) to write the essay until the final two minutes of class. Then I wrote a short note called "Lying: an existential viewpoint" in which I argued that lying was just a social construct and hence the question itself was meaningless. My teacher ate it up.
I think there is definitely a time to lie. I wouldn't be able to construct scenarios in which it is unambiguously the right decision, but I feel confident in a Nephi and Laban way that all actions, no matter how abhorrent in normal everyday life, may be right in certain circumstances. That said, I'm pretty careful about giving honest answers to my kids about things like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I don't seek out opportunities to puncture their innocense, but if they come to me with questions I pretty unapologetically give honest answers. Because I think a lot of harm can be done when you put your child's trust in you at risk, and I think there are few reasons to do such a thing.
Still, though, I would not say never; I can easily conceive of scenarios in which I would purposefully mislead and even straight out lie to my children in order to protect them from truths which would, in my belief, harm them. And if slave-traders were really after my friend Jim, I would tell them he ran the other way and try to sneak off while they weren't looking.
I enjoyed most of The Nation, right up until Daphne/Ermintrude's father arrived at the island. But I found the final few chapters thoroughly off-putting, to the point where I now tell people that I didn't much like the book. My particular gripes are about the need that Pratchett (an avowed humanist) had to intervene in the story and make it a moralistic play about the ability of science and exploration to give semi-mystical meaning to our otherwise purposeless civilization. Maybe that's putting it a bit strong, but I felt like the author spent four-fifths of a book exploring the interesting interstices of faith, doubt, miracle, perserverance, love and devotion, and then resolved it with some pablum about how "science doesn't belong to anybody" and can somehow both preserve our cultural traditions and at the same time unite us across all cultural boundaries. Which I think is absolute tripe. Science is (IMO) too revered in our Western culture (even our anti-authoritarian American culture); it's a useful tool, but it's not the answer to life, the universe and everything. Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett and Carl Sagan notwithstanding.
Whew, rant out of the way. What's hidden in there is I really did think it was a rippingly good book for about 200 pages. I think all of the questions Alvin and Paul raise are interesting and deserve a more full treatment than I can give at the moment, but I'll write my thoughts on a few.
The Culture and the Necessary I don't know to what degree I try to separate those aspects of my belief system that are culturally bred from those that are fundamental and invariant under multi-verses. I often ask myself questions like, "How absolutely wrong is it to drink alcohol?" (appropriate, given the context of the question within the poison beer). Obviously in ancient times and within the modern church prophets have drunk alcohol, presumably without everlasting consequences. So if alcohol isn't absolutely wrong, why is it wrong now in this time? Is it a cultural reason?
Perhaps more along the lines of what Alvin was thinking, I remember my shock during my first few weeks in Belgium when the Priests didn't cover the sacrament bread with a white cloth! I had seen in so many US wards the ritual of the sacrament that it seemed naked somehow without the solemn folding back of the cover to expose the bread, and then recovering and folding back the side to reveal the water. And I was doubly shocked when I realized that the sacrament ritual I was so used to was nowhere prescribed in the Scriptures. It was a bit of culture that had crept into the observance.
Are such things bad? I think they are, but not as bad as what can happen when you choose to confront them overly often. Specifically, performing spurious rituals and accepting as true and right things that are really just cultural appendages is (generally) preferable to attacking misfounded belief and risking 1) hurting another's faith and 2) accidentally hewing too deep and attacking well-founded belief. Excessive piety has seldom (it seems to me) led to excommunication, but if you slaughter too many sacred cows you may eventually find yourself killing something truly sacred (no offense to the Hindoos).
North vs. South In actual terms of North and South, it's interesting to note that most of the people live north of the equator (which makes sense since about 70% of the habitable land mass is north of the equator). So on one level it's almost inevitable that history would have a Northern slant to it.
To the more salient question of cultural superiority and subjugation, I feel pretty sensitive to it. I see within the US itself an increasingly homogenized culture, as regional dialects and accents disappear and we all shop for the same cheap crap at identical Walmarts and eat the same cheap food in identical plastic booths at fast food chain restaurants. I recognize that it's a completely rational decision; there are real to cost and efficiency benefits of the homogeneous culture. But I find it distressing that all local flavor seems to be disappearing from America. And I worry that the same thing is happening as a result of modernizing forces throughout the world.
While I feel that loss of cultural identity is a real problem, both within the US and internationally, I don't know that I would support any organized efforts to combat it. I think cultural preservation, and the desire and energy for cultural preservation must come from within the culture rather than without. Tying into the book, I thought the eventual protective role played by the British Empire while the island Nation made itself into a scientific Shangri-la derives from the same nation-building hubris that makes us believe we can export ideology. While I think it's important to engage on such matters (I'm a big supporter of muscular US diplomacy), I think the idea that a system in which local culture needs a global protector is doomed to failure.
Is there a time to lie In the tenth grade we were assigned to write an in-class essay on this very question. More specifically, on the portion of Adventures of Huck Finn when Huck lies to protect
I think there is definitely a time to lie. I wouldn't be able to construct scenarios in which it is unambiguously the right decision, but I feel confident in a Nephi and Laban way that all actions, no matter how abhorrent in normal everyday life, may be right in certain circumstances. That said, I'm pretty careful about giving honest answers to my kids about things like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I don't seek out opportunities to puncture their innocense, but if they come to me with questions I pretty unapologetically give honest answers. Because I think a lot of harm can be done when you put your child's trust in you at risk, and I think there are few reasons to do such a thing.
Still, though, I would not say never; I can easily conceive of scenarios in which I would purposefully mislead and even straight out lie to my children in order to protect them from truths which would, in my belief, harm them. And if slave-traders were really after my friend Jim, I would tell them he ran the other way and try to sneak off while they weren't looking.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Long Lost PVS Friends
Last week I got a phone call from this PVS
Since James isn't around much, I'll post a brief update on his behalf (and if I get it a little wrong he can correct me). He just graduated from Wharton (Penn) business school and decided to move his wife and 3 1/2 kids (due in December; congratulations!) to Delhi, India to pursue a business opportunity. He and a couple of partners have spent the last few months setting the business up, and hopefully within the year they'll have found success. I don't think James would like me releasing the details over the interwebs, but the idea is great and we obviously wish him all the success in the world (or at least I do; Alvin I'm not so sure).
So after an all-too-short visit, James headed down the Cape to pitch his business plan to some VC investors (I haven't heard whether that particular pitch was successful or not). Today, if I'm not mistaken, his plane is en route to India, carrying him and his family on their wonderful adventure. Safe travels Nuttall family and shubh kaamnaayein (शुभ कामनाएँ).
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Nation: I would like to eat your brains someday
I liked the book. The questions were also good.
Grandfathers speak
I listened to a story about an atheist who had been asked to pray to know if God was real—when he did, he decided that anything that he would receive as an answer would just be himself telling himself what he wanted to hear. I tend to disbelieve the religious experiences of a lot of people, which is probably the skeptic in me.
It seems to me that Mau was trying to resolve his tradition with his loss of faith in the Gods. His out-of-body Locaha experience was, I think, where he came to terms with the Gods. I liked the paradox and I think that is typical of finding out for oneself what one believes. Often, I think that the testimony someone shares is, if not a lie, a stretch of the truth they've accepted, and only then can the “voices of the Grandfathers” confirm the truth.
Spit Makes Good Beer
I am more curious what is in saliva that makes the beer turn out. There are a lot of cultural things that are nice to hang onto, but it's important to know the reason—like Daphne understanding there's something in the length of the song that makes the spit work its magic.
When we bless the refreshments, do we really thing the soda and sugar cookies will nourish and strengthen our bodies? Why do we have to bless the food before we eat? In our house, anytime before the dishes are put away counts.
What if _____ had never happened?
I don't think I really believe in “if” or a multiverse, but I like thinking about it, Schrodinger's cat and all that. Its amusing to think of what life would have been like had I done X, Y or Z instead of the what I actually chose. Considering that life is everlasting, does that make the multiverses infinite for each individual, or are they limited to a finite spectrum based on a finite character set which would never change? I suppose we've all got another multiverse involving drunken psychology.
Quotes and Comments
"When much is taken, something is returned"
This must be just another quantum version of the scripture. I like the version we have, as this seems like a little more vague platitude.
"Please give us a simple answer, so that we don't have to think, because if we think, we might find answers that don't fit the way we want the world to be."
Spinoza was frustrating to me for that reason. I don't know if there were answers in the philosophy, it just was at odds with the way I perceive the world, and I couldn't find a way to brush him away.
"I don't think he believes in his gods, but he believes in belief."
I like to think that I would be a Mormon even if something shook my faith—living the gospel makes me so happy. I believe in the ability of living my religion to make me happy.
On Good vs. Discussable Books
I remember a few years ago enough people told me to read the Da Vinci Code that I finally skimmed it and afterward I swore I would never waste that much time on filth. But I've done it since then. Popularity is occasionally valuable, but I value opinions of some more than others. In my mind a book club book should thought provoking first, enjoyable second. Though I've not enjoyed all the books I've read, I don't feel like I've wasted time (one of the benefits to reading rather than listening is that I control the pace).
Grandfathers speak
I listened to a story about an atheist who had been asked to pray to know if God was real—when he did, he decided that anything that he would receive as an answer would just be himself telling himself what he wanted to hear. I tend to disbelieve the religious experiences of a lot of people, which is probably the skeptic in me.
It seems to me that Mau was trying to resolve his tradition with his loss of faith in the Gods. His out-of-body Locaha experience was, I think, where he came to terms with the Gods. I liked the paradox and I think that is typical of finding out for oneself what one believes. Often, I think that the testimony someone shares is, if not a lie, a stretch of the truth they've accepted, and only then can the “voices of the Grandfathers” confirm the truth.
Spit Makes Good Beer
I am more curious what is in saliva that makes the beer turn out. There are a lot of cultural things that are nice to hang onto, but it's important to know the reason—like Daphne understanding there's something in the length of the song that makes the spit work its magic.
When we bless the refreshments, do we really thing the soda and sugar cookies will nourish and strengthen our bodies? Why do we have to bless the food before we eat? In our house, anytime before the dishes are put away counts.
What if _____ had never happened?
I don't think I really believe in “if” or a multiverse, but I like thinking about it, Schrodinger's cat and all that. Its amusing to think of what life would have been like had I done X, Y or Z instead of the what I actually chose. Considering that life is everlasting, does that make the multiverses infinite for each individual, or are they limited to a finite spectrum based on a finite character set which would never change? I suppose we've all got another multiverse involving drunken psychology.
Quotes and Comments
"When much is taken, something is returned"
This must be just another quantum version of the scripture. I like the version we have, as this seems like a little more vague platitude.
"Please give us a simple answer, so that we don't have to think, because if we think, we might find answers that don't fit the way we want the world to be."
Spinoza was frustrating to me for that reason. I don't know if there were answers in the philosophy, it just was at odds with the way I perceive the world, and I couldn't find a way to brush him away.
"I don't think he believes in his gods, but he believes in belief."
I like to think that I would be a Mormon even if something shook my faith—living the gospel makes me so happy. I believe in the ability of living my religion to make me happy.
On Good vs. Discussable Books
I remember a few years ago enough people told me to read the Da Vinci Code that I finally skimmed it and afterward I swore I would never waste that much time on filth. But I've done it since then. Popularity is occasionally valuable, but I value opinions of some more than others. In my mind a book club book should thought provoking first, enjoyable second. Though I've not enjoyed all the books I've read, I don't feel like I've wasted time (one of the benefits to reading rather than listening is that I control the pace).
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
One Nation. Under God Anchors.
I hope a lot of you have read or are reading this book because I have a lot of questions, more than I expect any one person to answer.
"Angels [and Grandfathers?] speak by the power of the Holy Ghost"
Mau has his whole world shattered around him when the wave comes. He suddenly does not believe in the Gods his people had always believed in. Yet, at the same time he hears the voices of his ancestors talking to him; he has conversations with Locaha, the God of Death; and he has an out of body experience. I thought this was an interesting and not altogether uncommon paradox.
I think sometimes we grow up with certain beliefs about religion, and then we have a catastrophe (like the wave) or a 'coming of age' (and Mau was right between boyhood and manhood) where we realize that our religion is not what we thought it was. It is then our tendency to throw it all out and not believe in anything, but simultaneously, we may be having experiences that should be affirming our faith that there is much more than science and reason can explain.
I used to see things in black and white, and I had a hard time when I came upon things that weren't so clearly defined. It was tempting to say that because some things weren't clear maybe nothing was clear, but I think the 'voices of the Grandfathers' are not just in my head. And I'm strengthened when others say they've heard the 'voices of the Grandmothers'. Am I making sense? Have you had your perception of religion shift drastically? Were the voices of the Grandfathers real or just in Mau's head? Why could the ghost girl hear the Grandmothers but not hear anything after the death of her mother?
The Parable of the Poison Beer
I think the spitting and singing to make the beer safe is a lot like many of our spiritual traditions. Some of it is necessary to keep us safe (i.e. the spitting and waiting) and some of it is just culture (i.e. the song about the 4 brothers vs. baa baa black sheep). If we are smart, we may be able to seperate the culture from the necessary, but it doesn't make the culture bad. It is much better to follow the entire spiritual tradition (culture and all) then to get lifted up in pride (as Foxlip did) and get killed. Do you agree? Do you try to separate culture from the necessary? Do you like to sing Baa, Baa Black Sheep? Does it affect the quality of your beer?
False Priests
I enjoyed the character of the priest that was silently struggling with his own faith in the Gods while simultaneously trying to restore everyone else's faith. He said some wise things in between acting rather stupidly. When he tried to keep Mau from bringing up the God Anchor that hadn't been there before, he showed that he believed in a dead religion. There are so many historical examples of religious leaders that fought against change because they thought it proved their religion to be false or it weakened their position. I'm grateful to be in a living church where we are encouraged to believe all things that are true. What is the appropriate way to react when things we thought were true turn out to be incomplete or false?
If North were South
While it's probably not unique to this book, I'd never really thought about the idea that the orientation of our globes (with North being on top) is arbitrary. I've never seen a map turned the other way around, and the idea of it would be difficult to adjust to. I liked how Pratchett said the cannibal looked like the Prime Minister; how he pointed out who the true savages were; and how the original thinkers were from the Nation. Do you think that museums and the idea that artifacts should be 'where the world can see them' are racist or cultural supremist or whatever the right word for that is? Do people in the Southern Hemisphere have inferiority complexes?
What if _____ had never happened?
At the end, Mau and Daphne wonder if they would have been better off if the wave had never happened. Daphne decides that she's glad the wave happened, and Mau decides not to decide and thinks there would be good and bad parts to each scenario in the multiverse. This illustrates the growth that can come through tragedy and trials and why they are an important part of this life.
However, just because we've grown from a trial does not mean that the trial was good. I've never met someone that has had a child out of wedlock that has regretted having that child. After all, how can you regret the creation of a wonderful child? But does that mean that the decision that led to having the child was good? Or that it was meant to happen?
We change through our life experiences and trials have an ability to change us faster than comfortable living, but the retrospective look back on our lives may not be the best way to decide if an event was good or from God. How does one determine if one's path was guided by God vs. allowed to happen by God? Or are all paths always guided by God at all times?
I don't know if I believe in a multiverse, but I like the idea of it from the ability of God to judge our actions. For example, He could say that if event A had happened, then we would have behaved like so, but if event A never happened, then we would have turned out like such and such. What are the multiverse versions of you doing right now? One of mine is in Texas with a PhD. Another might be a drunk psychologist.
Quotes and Comments
"When much is taken, something is returned"
It's like the inverse of the scripture (D&C scripture mastery!): when "much is given, much is required". Is the inverse of any scripture true? Is he that is compelled to do nothing a wise and not a slothful servant?
"Please give us a simple answer, so that we don't have to think, because if we think, we might find answers that don't fit the way we want the world to be."
How limited are we in our learning because we fix a perception of the world and make everything fit into it? I like to think that I think more than the average person, but I find it quite difficult to have lots of unresolved questions.
"You shout and stamp and yell that there are no gods, and then you shake your fist at the sky and revile them for not existing! You need them to exist so that the flames of your denial will warm you in your self-righteousness! That's not thinking, that's just a hurt child screaming in pain!"
Even atheism is a belief system.
"She just wanted an explanation that was better than "It's the will of God," which was grown-up speak for "because."'
We have inherent needs for explanations. If they don't exist or if we don't know them, we'll make them up. In sports, for example, we're quite good at coming up with explanations for random events.
"I don't think he believes in his gods, but he believes in belief."
There is lots of evidence for the power of our beliefs to have real effects on our health and other tangible events. Unfortunately, perhaps, I don't think you can just 'believe in belief.' You have to believe in something, and you have to really believe it for it to have any positive benefit.
"And that was a sin. Even if you have no god at all, that was a sin. Some things are a sin all by themselves. And I'm going to murder you, and that is a mortal sin, too."
Certainly ethics can exist outside of religion. In theory, things can be wrong (though perhaps not a sin) without a moral authority to say it is wrong. However, Cox reached a point where murder wasn't wrong, as did the cannibals.
"If a lie will make us strong, a lie will be my weapon. People want lies to live by. They cry out for them."
I do think that people want lies (including children), but lies are a dangerous weapon. When lies are uncovered, then any gain from the lie becomes nullified by the increased pain of discovering the lie and the consequent lack of faith. Of course, in this case, if the truth was discovered, then they would all be dead anyway. Is there a 'time to lie'?
On Good vs. Popular Books
I agree with Peter’s comment on my last post that the popularity of the book doesn’t make it a good book. And just because it’s a good book doesn’t mean it’s the best book for the book club. I wasn’t trying to demean any of the previous choices (except Peter’s) because I think all of the books have led to interesting discussions, and the only reason I tried to pick on Peter was because he hasn’t liked any of my book choices and I was trying to validate myself. (I really liked 2 of his 3 choices.)
I chose this book over the other options I presented because I remembered wanting to discuss it with the book club when I finished, even though the other options were probably both better and more popular. I value all of your opinions and thoughts, and I hope you’ll comment even if you haven’t read the book.
PS In case you haven’t read the book and in case it wasn’t clear from all of this rambling, the author ends the book on a note that indicates he does believe in God.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Seek Ye Out of the Best Books
OK, so quoting the D&C in my post title doesn't exactly mean I'm getting ready for seminary, but here's a little diversion. I've been looking up rankings on Goodreads.com lately to get some sort of outside ranking for all of the books I've read over the last few years. Personally, I refuse to rank books because each book is good/bad for it's own reason, and a simple ranking may ignore why that book is useful or good/bad for a specific audience. Still, I think they are fun to look at.
Note that the rankings are on a scale of 1 to 5, but it's almost impossible to get an average ranking below 3. The rankings are fluid, and the more popular a book is the more people will have given it a ranking. So it's not fair and I'm not saying I agree with every ranking, but it is interesting. Here are the rankings of all of the PVS book club books, as well as a few of the suggested books that were ultimately not chosen:
Homo Politicus 3.28 (Agreed, terrible book)
Why Men Hate Going to Church 3.41
Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State 3.43
State of Fear 3.46
Nudge 3.52 (I enjoyed this one, but writing about politics won't get you very high on this list.)
My Life As A Traitor 3.57
The Quants 3.61
The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules our Lives 3.65 (Maybe it takes a statistician to appreciate this.)
The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit 3.68 (I was disappointed this didn't rank higher.)
Getting at the Truth: Responding to Difficult Questions about LDS Beliefs 3.77
John Barleycorn 3.78
A Study in Scarlet 3.86
Twilight 3.87 (OK, so no one even suggested we read this (though Paul referenced it in a post), but I thought it gives perspective. One caveat is that almost 400,000 people have ranked this book as compared to <250 that ranked David O McKay.)
Year of Wonders 3.89
Outliers 3.97 (The highest of all of Gladwell's books.)
The Road 3.97 (This was left out of the original list.)
The Nine 4.00
Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance 4.01 (I liked Complications (see below) so I found the 'sequel'.)
The Third Policeman 4.01
The Nation 4.05 (I'll kick off the discussion in another week, and then Jesse will have a turn to add to this list.)
A Town Like Alice 4.06
Complications: A Surgeons Notes on an Imperfect Science 4.11
Dirk Gently and the Holistic Detective Agency 4.16
Mountains Beyond Mountains 4.23
Omnivore’s Dilemma 4.23
David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism 4.30
East of Eden 4.32 (Impressive considering I think the site has a slight bias against older books some people were forced to read.)
Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes and The Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen 4.37
The Hunger Games 4.57 (Second highest ranking (after the Book of Mormon) out of the last 200 books I've read.)
In light of these rankings...
...I wish I had chosen Born to Run this month.
...I don't feel bad for skimming some of the books chosen.
...I do feel bad for only watching the movie of East of Eden.
...I think it's obvious that my book choices have been way better than Peter's.
Note that the rankings are on a scale of 1 to 5, but it's almost impossible to get an average ranking below 3. The rankings are fluid, and the more popular a book is the more people will have given it a ranking. So it's not fair and I'm not saying I agree with every ranking, but it is interesting. Here are the rankings of all of the PVS book club books, as well as a few of the suggested books that were ultimately not chosen:
Homo Politicus 3.28 (Agreed, terrible book)
Why Men Hate Going to Church 3.41
Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State 3.43
State of Fear 3.46
Nudge 3.52 (I enjoyed this one, but writing about politics won't get you very high on this list.)
My Life As A Traitor 3.57
The Quants 3.61
The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules our Lives 3.65 (Maybe it takes a statistician to appreciate this.)
The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit 3.68 (I was disappointed this didn't rank higher.)
Getting at the Truth: Responding to Difficult Questions about LDS Beliefs 3.77
John Barleycorn 3.78
A Study in Scarlet 3.86
Twilight 3.87 (OK, so no one even suggested we read this (though Paul referenced it in a post), but I thought it gives perspective. One caveat is that almost 400,000 people have ranked this book as compared to <250 that ranked David O McKay.)
Year of Wonders 3.89
Outliers 3.97 (The highest of all of Gladwell's books.)
The Road 3.97 (This was left out of the original list.)
The Nine 4.00
Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance 4.01 (I liked Complications (see below) so I found the 'sequel'.)
The Third Policeman 4.01
The Nation 4.05 (I'll kick off the discussion in another week, and then Jesse will have a turn to add to this list.)
A Town Like Alice 4.06
Complications: A Surgeons Notes on an Imperfect Science 4.11
Dirk Gently and the Holistic Detective Agency 4.16
Mountains Beyond Mountains 4.23
Omnivore’s Dilemma 4.23
David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism 4.30
East of Eden 4.32 (Impressive considering I think the site has a slight bias against older books some people were forced to read.)
Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes and The Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen 4.37
The Hunger Games 4.57 (Second highest ranking (after the Book of Mormon) out of the last 200 books I've read.)
In light of these rankings...
...I wish I had chosen Born to Run this month.
...I don't feel bad for skimming some of the books chosen.
...I do feel bad for only watching the movie of East of Eden.
...I think it's obvious that my book choices have been way better than Peter's.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Better, Best and Alice
I really enjoyed A Town Like Alice. I'm sorry that neither Paul nor Alvin thought it was that good, but I'm not sure I can create a sufficient defense to change anyone's impressions.
The thing I liked most about Alice was the strong protagonist. I thought she was characterized quite well, put through a series of interesting and trying experiences, and yet remained an effective every(wo)man. In a lot of ways I saw one of my favorite movie protagonists in her: Andy Dufresne from Shawshank Redemption. Dealt a rather tough hand, she proceeded to give hope to those around her and constantly work to improve their situation. When she was given money, she went on to return kindness to those who had shown kindness to her, and then through her courage and vision provide prosperity to a host of people.
To Paul's point about her money being misspent from a utility standpoint, I certainly see the truth of that statement. She could obviously have spent her money providing wells throughout Malaysia; this would likely have represented a greater "bang for her buck" way of approaching humanitarian aid*. But the message I took from her actions is slightly different, and more in-line with my own feelings on charitable giving. You have a greater moral obligation to those who come into your path than those who don't. I see justification for this in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The point wasn't to help _everybody_ or to help those most in need (although those are good things to desire), but rather that it is sinful to be in a unique position to help and not provide that help.
Consider the following hypothetical: you're all alone on your way to a job interview when a plane crashes into a nearby pond. The small plane is sinking, and you can hear the voices of a few passengers calling for help. The only thing it will take to save them is to wade into the lake, swim over, and pull them out. But in the process you will ruin your expensive interview shoes (seems a little unreasonable, but go with me here). Alternatively, you could keep your wardrobe pristine, go get your job, sell your shoes, and dedicate a portion of your salary and the sale of your shoes (second hand) to buying mosquito netting to save children from malaria in Africa. As in most hypotheticals, treat this as an exclusive set of options. What is the moral thing to do?
I contend that 1) it's not clear what the moral thing to do but 2) I'd be personally swayed to save the people on the plane because I am uniquely able to help them and 3) that there's nothing wrong with that per my understanding of the gospel. Similarly, for Jean Paget the option of dedicating her money to saving people in Malaysia by building wells would be a noble sacrifice, but I think the good she did to the town of Alice is no less in keeping with the moral of the Good Samaritan parable.
I guess in the end I liked the book for two reasons. One, I just found it entertaining. The plot line wasn't strong (particularly once the war ended), but I felt like there was a good blend of tension and description and characterization. And two, I felt buoyed up by Paget's example that if you work hard and smart, regardless of the circumstances you find yourself in, you can not only help yourself but help others in the process. If I were to summarize the moral of the novel (for me) it would be that strong character and perseverance can bring happiness and prosperity not only to an individual but to all those with whom she comes into contact. That probably isn't true (c.f. Candide), but it is what I wish were true.
*As an interesting side note, I recently read a story of an Afghan village where a well was built (by USAID, I believe). After a few months the well was destroyed, but not by the Taliban or by outraged village Elders. Rather it was the women of the village themselves who destroyed it because it took away their only opportunity to gather and socialize at the river. They saw the daily treks as a break from the monotony of the day. The point of the article was the US has invested huge resources in understanding the enemy in Afghanistan, but not many in understanding the culture of the Afghan people themselves.
The thing I liked most about Alice was the strong protagonist. I thought she was characterized quite well, put through a series of interesting and trying experiences, and yet remained an effective every(wo)man. In a lot of ways I saw one of my favorite movie protagonists in her: Andy Dufresne from Shawshank Redemption. Dealt a rather tough hand, she proceeded to give hope to those around her and constantly work to improve their situation. When she was given money, she went on to return kindness to those who had shown kindness to her, and then through her courage and vision provide prosperity to a host of people.
To Paul's point about her money being misspent from a utility standpoint, I certainly see the truth of that statement. She could obviously have spent her money providing wells throughout Malaysia; this would likely have represented a greater "bang for her buck" way of approaching humanitarian aid*. But the message I took from her actions is slightly different, and more in-line with my own feelings on charitable giving. You have a greater moral obligation to those who come into your path than those who don't. I see justification for this in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The point wasn't to help _everybody_ or to help those most in need (although those are good things to desire), but rather that it is sinful to be in a unique position to help and not provide that help.
Consider the following hypothetical: you're all alone on your way to a job interview when a plane crashes into a nearby pond. The small plane is sinking, and you can hear the voices of a few passengers calling for help. The only thing it will take to save them is to wade into the lake, swim over, and pull them out. But in the process you will ruin your expensive interview shoes (seems a little unreasonable, but go with me here). Alternatively, you could keep your wardrobe pristine, go get your job, sell your shoes, and dedicate a portion of your salary and the sale of your shoes (second hand) to buying mosquito netting to save children from malaria in Africa. As in most hypotheticals, treat this as an exclusive set of options. What is the moral thing to do?
I contend that 1) it's not clear what the moral thing to do but 2) I'd be personally swayed to save the people on the plane because I am uniquely able to help them and 3) that there's nothing wrong with that per my understanding of the gospel. Similarly, for Jean Paget the option of dedicating her money to saving people in Malaysia by building wells would be a noble sacrifice, but I think the good she did to the town of Alice is no less in keeping with the moral of the Good Samaritan parable.
I guess in the end I liked the book for two reasons. One, I just found it entertaining. The plot line wasn't strong (particularly once the war ended), but I felt like there was a good blend of tension and description and characterization. And two, I felt buoyed up by Paget's example that if you work hard and smart, regardless of the circumstances you find yourself in, you can not only help yourself but help others in the process. If I were to summarize the moral of the novel (for me) it would be that strong character and perseverance can bring happiness and prosperity not only to an individual but to all those with whom she comes into contact. That probably isn't true (c.f. Candide), but it is what I wish were true.
*As an interesting side note, I recently read a story of an Afghan village where a well was built (by USAID, I believe). After a few months the well was destroyed, but not by the Taliban or by outraged village Elders. Rather it was the women of the village themselves who destroyed it because it took away their only opportunity to gather and socialize at the river. They saw the daily treks as a break from the monotony of the day. The point of the article was the US has invested huge resources in understanding the enemy in Afghanistan, but not many in understanding the culture of the Afghan people themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)